Shes In Parties posted:you see the problem is in their culture. god drat thug culture. lol god shut up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UoaCeLrkLQ&t=180s
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
KoldPT posted:I miss Guterres. At this point i'd take 90's\early 2000 PS over any of the centrists that are currently in power. How is it possible that Portugal under Socrates with 70% GDP in debt was unsustainable but the current situation, with 130% debt, is the road to improvement? edit: i pissed someone off 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:. Pork barrel spending is getting federal funds for local places, it has nothing to do with local governments. So that's one thing you misunderstand. quote:And here you have the electoral college, which is just ridiculous. It massively disenfranchises voters in many states (which reduces overall turnout for local elections as well), quote:
Again though that's not a function of the system set up in the Constitution. States are free to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the overall popular vote if they so choose (and there is currently a compact to make that law). They can also just as easily award them proportionately. Perhaps it's the fault of the constitution for not specifying a specific way, but it's disingenuous to say that the Constitution requires winner take all allotment. quote:
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Pork barrel spending is getting federal funds for local places, it has nothing to do with local governments. So that's one thing you misunderstand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
^^ Yes, that is true.computer parts posted:Pork barrel spending is getting federal funds for local places, it has nothing to do with local governments. So that's one thing you misunderstand. I understand that, but if a representative (in the House of Representatives) can no longer bring federal funds to his district, what advantage is there to appoint MP's by district instead of through proportional representation? quote:Actually, presidential elections are the highest turnout races we have. Midterms (which do not utilize the electoral college ) are much lower in turnout, as are special elections or state races. Yes, but turnout in safe states is lower than turnout in swing states. Which is only logical after all. If you were a Californian Republican in the last presidential election, you might as well have abstained in the ballot for president, since Obama was sure to carry the state. quote:Again though that's not a function of the system set up in the Constitution. States are free to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the overall popular vote if they so choose (and there is currently a compact to make that law). They can also just as easily award them proportionately. Perhaps it's the fault of the constitution for not specifying a specific way, but it's disingenuous to say that the Constitution requires winner take all allotment. When did I fault the constitution? The electoral college currently functions as I described. If states enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all my criticism will become invalid. You could simply abolish the electoral college at this point, but it doesn't really matter if it is kept. Because at that point, at least the executive would be won by the party with the most votes, and things like Bush winning over Gore could not happen again. But as long as it is possible for the minority to win the majority of votes in the EC, I will see that as a big flaw in US democracy. quote:None of the systems you mentioned are really handicapped by technical issues at all, it's the philosophies which are not currently popular, specifically that states are literally States (countries) rather than provinces. I don't care if the states see themselves as literally countries united in a federation, as long as that makes the whole United States less democratic. Gerrymandering is a big problem of course:  Proportional representation knows no gerrymandering. You can even have local representatives in mixe-member-proportional representation and gerrymandering would be useless as well. You can also eliminate gerrymandering in FPTP electoral systems of course, like the British have done, but this is sadly not in the cards for most of the USA currently, mostly because it is a matter for the states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Funnily enough I've just been reading on this exact topic -- Walter Lippmann had more or less the exact same concern at the start of the New Deal era, and his answer was pretty much that the executive needs to have initiative in fiscal matters. He talks about it in The Method of Freedom (Google Books). And Weber said the same thing about Germany, here if you can read German. Contemporary democratic theory tends to overlook this aspect of democratic politics in general I think because of its massive prioritisation of discussion over decision-making thanks to discursive democracy theory etc. Just a historical aside 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:
It's not what states see themselves as, it is the literal basis of the country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It's not what states see themselves as, it is the literal basis of the country. So, it is what states see themselves as.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Zohar posted:So, it is what states see themselves as. Saying it's what they see themselves as implies that it isn't actually true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It's not what states see themselves as, it is the literal basis of the country. But it cannot be taken seriously. "Real" states are sovereign entities, free to join or leave organizations as they please. None of the states may leave the USA, if they break away the rest will use force of arms to take back the seceding members. They may have been countries at the time of the founding, but this era is long over. The founding cantons of Switzerland saw themselves as sovereign entities centuries before the creation of the USA, but they are integral part of Switzerland today. And it doesn't even matter, because it is the results that matter. So the constitution forbids a unified nationwide election law? Change it. You can eliminate gerrymandering by creating an independent board for redistricting and abolish the electoral college by creating direct elections for the presidency. And while you are at it you could create a new national holiday or move an old one so that the USA stops embarrassing itself every election day by having hours long waiting times at the ballot. And increase the size of the House so that Americans are no longer the worst represented people on Earth, with 700.000 people per representative, when the next worst legislature has 400.000 people per representative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Saying it's what they see themselves as implies that it isn't actually true. I was being facetious. Validity as a historical basis and abstract atemporal truth are completely different things: the fact that two and a half centuries ago the United States emerged on those grounds has no bearing on whether they can still viably be held to be true in contemporary political analysis. I would suggest it certainly hasn't been true since at least the 60s, most probably since the early 20th century (Ira Katznelson analyses the South at that point as a 'country within a country' in his recent book Fear Itself but not the states themselves), and quite likely since the middle of the 19th century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:But it cannot be taken seriously. "Real" states are sovereign entities, free to join or leave organizations as they please. None of the states may leave the USA, I'm going to stop you right here because you're wrong. It is widely held that states would be free to leave in the same manner that they joined, which is to say by a majority of the other states consenting to the leaving as the majority had to consent to them joining. Additionally, fully sovereign rights are implicitly delegated to the federal government by ratifying the constitution. Zohar posted:I was being facetious. Validity as a historical basis and abstract atemporal truth are completely different things: the fact that two and a half centuries ago the United States emerged on those grounds has no bearing on whether they can still viably be held to be true in contemporary political analysis. I would suggest it certainly hasn't been true since at least the 60s, most probably since the early 20th century (Ira Katznelson analyses the South at that point as a 'country within a country' in his recent book Fear Itself but not the states themselves), and quite likely since the middle of the 19th century. The country is structured on that basis, and it is indeed how it functions. Vast areas of operation are done independently, or with merely some federal cash and guidelines to follow to keep getting the cash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:The country is structured on that basis, and it is indeed how it functions. Vast areas of operation are done independently, or with merely some federal cash and guidelines to follow to keep getting the cash. That is true of all countries with a federal structure. Their subjects are not, however, sovereign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I'm going to stop you right here because you're wrong. It is widely held that states would be free to leave in the same manner that they joined, which is to say by a majority of the other states consenting to the leaving as the majority had to consent to them joining. Additionally, fully sovereign rights are implicitly delegated to the federal government by ratifying the constitution. And this just proves that the states are not real countries, because sovereign states can leave any organization they wish even without consent of the remaining members of the organization. And if your sovereign rights are delegated to the federal government, and constitutional changes don't require unanimous consents (a requirement for changing the European Union treaties for example, which are the only ways to delegate more power from EU members to Brussels), so that for example educational policy can be delegated to the federal government against the wishes of a certain (small) number of states via constitutional amendment, how can the states be said to be countries? They simply aren't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Sure, if all the other states voted to let another state leave the union that state could leave but this will never happen and effectively states cannot secede (and there's almost no reason to do so)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Besides, this is a complete tangent given that the problem that Tarrannor is pointing out depends simply on the existence of a general interest expressed by a particular represented demos, it could potentially apply just as much to the EU, which certainly is a 'federation of sovereign states' or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:And this just proves that the states are not real countries, because sovereign states can leave any organization they wish even without consent of the remaining members of the organization. Not always, no. Sovereignty is not an absolute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Not always, no. Sovereignty is not an absolute. It pretty much is by most definitions of the term that I'm aware of -- you're either sovereign or not, there is no in between. If you take the Schmittian or the Hobbesian definition, there can only be one sovereign -- one authority with the final power to decide on a given political case -- in a given area, by definition. In terms of classical (and, as far as I know, current) international law, only one authority can be sovereign, because only one authority can ultimately embody the decision-making power of a people in international relations (clearly US states don't have this power). There might be marginal cases like condominia, which the Hobbesian/Schmittian account would discount in any case, but that's basically it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Zohar posted:It pretty much is by most definitions of the term that I'm aware of -- you're either sovereign or not, there is no in between. If you take the Schmittian or the Hobbesian definition, there can only be one sovereign -- one authority with the final power to decide on a given political case -- in a given area, by definition. In terms of classical (and, as far as I know, current) international law, only one authority can be sovereign, because only one authority can ultimately embody the decision-making power of a people in international relations (clearly US states don't have this power). There might be marginal cases like condominia, which the Hobbesian/Schmittian account would discount in any case, but that's basically it. In practise, all kinds of reductions of sovereignty happen all the time, frequently with no easy way for a country in question to easily break the restrictions without incident.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:In practise, all kinds of reductions of sovereignty happen all the time, frequently with no easy way for a country in question to easily break the restrictions without incident. Indeed, and many theorists have pointed this out as a supplement to the theory of sovereignty, but it has no bearing on the question of whether there can be overlapping fields of sovereignty since even where sovereignty is impinged upon by another political force, that force doesn't itself take on the characteristics of sovereignty. Cosmopolitan IR theorists like Archibugi and co might take issue with this on a normative basis, but as a descriptive account I think it's fairly consistent. To take a random example, Pol Pot may have made a sovereign decision to start massacring Vietnamese people, and Vietnam's military intervention in Cambodia impinged upon his ability to carry out this decision. Vietnam, however, did not (other than maybe instantaneously) assume any kind of 'sovereignty' over Cambodia in doing so -- that is, they did not assume either the right (or ability) to represent the Cambodian people before international law, or the right (or ability) to overrule the Cambodian government's sovereign decisions in general. In any case, at any given moment, only one authority can practice ultimate decision-making power in a territory, by definition -- that's the claim of the Schmittian/Hobbesian theory of sovereignty. (e: To simplify, the general point here is that ultimate authority is not the same as total authority) If we take the Weberian definition of the state as a monopoly on the legitimate use of force -- which isn't precisely a theory of sovereignty anyway -- then the status of federal subjects with a certain capacity to carry out legitimate acts of violence, like US states, might blur a bit. But that can still be incorporated in the final analysis, given that Weber after all himself participated in the construction of the Weimar Republic, based on a federal constitution. In the US, the federal state has assumed a certain legitimate authority, at least in extraordinary situations, to withdraw or impose force on the constituent states. To that extent their capacities are practiced at the pleasure of the federal state, not the other way round as the constitution might originally have it. Like I said, though, as interesting as this discussion is (or probably isn't, for most other people) it has little bearing on the original thing that was being discussed. Zohar fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Another nazi attack last night, this time in Malmö. One of the attackers is Andreas Karlsson of Svenskarnas Parti who just returned from supporting the nazis in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
One of my favorite bands posted this on their Facebook page:quote:To our swedish friends!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Rutkowski posted:Another nazi attack last night, this time in Malmö. One of the attackers is Andreas Karlsson of Svenskarnas Parti who just returned from supporting the nazis in Ukraine. Came to post this, 4 people stabbed, and one is still in a coma, though stable. It would appear Swedish intelligence recenet claim that local nazis going to riot in Ukraine would not lead to violence back in Sweden, was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
And pretty much everyone with more than two brain cells collectively said "no poo poo Sherlock?" to the SÄPO chief of intelligence yesterday. After the Uppsala manifestation in support of those attacked(where police attacked some of us for being masked despite not doing anything but listening to my speech about how police recklessly harass antifascists while nazis are allowed to act with free hands, way to prove my point) a member of the manifestation was attacked by five nazis when he had left those he walked home with. I also recieved a personal record(in one evening) of five death threats after the speech. Apparently, they had someone recording it(or just retelling the gist of it) and spread it amongst their organizations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Worth mentioning is that the dude still in coma is known as Showan who is one of the founders of Football Supporters Against Homophobia which is a campaign that several of the largest teams in Sweden are part of. After the attack even the more right-wing supporter groups have given him support, even fans of opposing teams, that's how hosed up the situation is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Yeah, considering the enmity between ultra sets, this was actually pretty heartwarming. Anyway, some people I know went to visit, and it seems that he really is stable, but remains in coma. I really hope he'll be okay when he comes to 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Tias posted:Yeah, considering the enmity between ultra sets, this was actually pretty heartwarming. Yeah I heard they managed to get rid of the blood in the skull which is a huge plus and as they say, no news is good news. EDIT: For those not from Sweden, these people getting stabbed at "Möllan" is about the same as if a nazi gang would stab a bunch of left wingers in St. Pauli in Hamburg. Möllan is pretty much known as a "safe-zone" for minorities and leftists in Malmö and this is quite a bit out of the ordinary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Is there something like the sandcastle of the LP subforum for D&D? I think a thread for discussing political systems could be quite interesting. A subforum dedicated to discussing specific parts of government would be much easier and better than a thread. An example thread prompt in this subforum would be: Among X, Y, and Z governments, which is best at accomplishing A within their own society? Why? Is Germany's or the US' political system better at heeding the interests of federal states within their own societies? Is the NHS of Australia or the UK better at cost efficiency? Why? Note that these prompts do not ask if Germany or the US have "better" societies, but rather which is best at accomplishing A Goal in their respective societies within their respective governments. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Rutkowski posted:Worth mentioning is that the dude still in coma is known as Showan who is one of the founders of Football Supporters Against Homophobia which is a campaign that several of the largest teams in Sweden are part of. After the attack even the more right-wing supporter groups have given him support, even fans of opposing teams, that's how hosed up the situation is. MFF, the team he and I support, showed up with the whole squad where the assault went down to take a picture and show support against fascists. Real cool of them to get behind one of their biggest supporters like that. Sends a good message to nazis as well since they tend to like football...
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
dangerdoom volvo posted:MFF, the team he and I support, showed up with the whole squad where the assault went down to take a picture and show support against fascists. Real cool of them to get behind one of their biggest supporters like that. Sends a good message to nazis as well since they tend to like football...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Speaking of racism, Wilders just admitted that he just wants a Netherlands with less Moroccans. Not less influence of Islam as he's always claiming. Not less crime from young, poor Moroccans. Just less Moroccans in general. He said this in an unexpected interview in the street, so people could just think he accidentally really said what he thought, but afterwards he clarified, saying "The less Moroccans in the Netherlands the better" (http://nos.nl/video/623152-wilders-hoe-minder-marokkanen-in-nederland-hoe-beter.html)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Do Moroccans still immigrate to the Netherlands? I thought they mostly came as gastarbeiters like 3 generations ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:Speaking of racism, Wilders just admitted that he just wants a Netherlands with less Moroccans. Not less influence of Islam as he's always claiming. Not less crime from young, poor Moroccans. Just less Moroccans in general. He said this in an unexpected interview in the street, so people could just think he accidentally really said what he thought, but afterwards he clarified, saying "The less Moroccans in the Netherlands the better" (http://nos.nl/video/623152-wilders-hoe-minder-marokkanen-in-nederland-hoe-beter.html) The fewer  Also, I can't loving believe Geert Wilders is still listened to. It's not revelatory that he believes fewer Moroccans would be a good thing, nor even that he said it out loud in front of cameras, because his whole career is built on saying poo poo like this. "If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West." Literally 12th century thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:Also, I can't loving believe Geert Wilders is still listened to. One of the largest parties with chances of a plurality if there were national elections today according to the polls. Also, literally a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:One of the largest parties with chances of a plurality if there were national elections today according to the polls. I thought Wilders left to start his own party because of his issues with authoritarianism and so on, and they're only going to contest a couple of council positions at the moment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:I thought Wilders left to start his own party because of his issues with authoritarianism and so on, and they're only going to contest a couple of council positions at the moment? Wilders left the liberal party back in September of 2004. He then made his own party (PVV, party for freedom) which he got in parliament with in 2006 (he was in parliament from 2004-2006 as well, but as a one-man fraction due to there not being elections since his split with the liberals). Although the interesting thing about his political party is that it isn't one. You see, they prefer to characterize it as a "movement" rather than a party. That way, they can get away with their party having only 1 member, Wilders himself. In turn that means they don't have to have such pesky things as inter-party democracy to elect their leader or figure out who makes what position on their election lists, or who gets to run for office in provincial and local elections (or indeed where they will run in local elections at all) or occupy senate seats. They also conveniently don't have to make public their donors with this setup (American far right fundies and also possible ties to Israel, most likely). Instead, all decisions are made by Dear Leader Wilders (PBUH and his hair). The result is 1 very politically shrewd guy who has surrounded himself with incompetent nitwits as sycophants (seriously, the other PVV MPs are mouth-breathing morons who make their total ignorance and incompetence painfully obvious whenever they open their mouths, which is why we hardly ever see interviews or the like with them anywhere at all ever) who jostle for favor and position among themselves, and anyone who dares utter any type of criticism or call for democratization publicly is unceremoniously removed. Presumably too much disagreeing internally will also quickly see your name removed from electoral rolls and have you fade back into obscurity. His voters, polls, show, by and large agree with this whole state of affairs. Now let's have a think, where else have we seen a leader with all power vested in him surrounding himself with idiots who fight amongst themselves for his favor while never questioning him? Oh right, Pim Fortuyn did the exact same loving thing and then he got assassinated days before an election he was already pretty set to win big in, his party then went on to win big, become a major coalition partner of a government and proceed to embarrass the ever loving poo poo out of themselves, the government and the country with their immediate and extremely childish infighting to determine leadership and what even their actual political positions would be (before their position was "whatever Fortuyn says" and Fortuyn could say one thing one day and something entirely different the next based on how he felt the political winds were blowing, and his voters lapped it up cus at least he was finally daring to say things or whatever the gently caress. The only good thing was that they gridlocked the poo poo out of themselves so they couldn't wreck poo poo too badly. We basically had no functional government for over a year. Although to be fair to Fortuyn, at least his party was an actual party, even if build all on the shoulders of one politically savvy man and filled out with incompetent morons. Oh and also Hitler. But clearly comparing him with Hitler is horrible because Hitler was the biggest mass-murderer in the last centuries and "our country should have less Jews" is totally different from "our country should have less Morrocans". Totally. Because reasons (Jews are people unlike...). Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:One of the largest parties with chances of a plurality if there were national elections today according to the polls. I am severely disheartened by the lack of a strong response from the other parties re: Wilders' statement about Moroccans. "The less, the better" is reminiscent of every call to ethnic cleansing ever and imo borderline incitement to harm or kill. Of course he'll deny that, but you just know some mouthbreathing fuckwit will get this poo poo into his head because Geert said it. The man is idolized by some and it's getting really dangerous now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
Elliptical Dick posted:I am severely disheartened by the lack of a strong response from the other parties re: Wilders' statement about Moroccans. "The less, the better" is reminiscent of every call to ethnic cleansing ever and imo borderline incitement to harm or kill. Of course he'll deny that, but you just know some mouthbreathing fuckwit will get this poo poo into his head because Geert said it. They're all way too afraid they'll be characterized as uncivil extremists somehow. so when the blonde man talks about getting rid of an ethnic group they think what they should do is politely disagree, including those themselves belonging to that ethnic group. I guess some of them also still somehow think that maybe if they ignore him and his outrageous statements he'll go away, even though the media will keep giving him attention due to outrageous statements being good for business and the fact that his party of one which is only running in 2 loving municipalities in local elections might win a plurality on the national level. I'd rather they'd call for revolution and Wilders being the first against the wall tbh. Oh also fun fact the latest PVV election programme calls for the establishment of an ethnicity-register for all Dutch citizens. Sure can't remember anyone else who wanted that, nor how that was ever used for anything the slightest bit bad... And also also to extend my last post, the fact that Wilders is surrounded by drooling idiots (and even he knows it) is the reason he refuses to run in more than 2 municipalities and he didn't want to get in the last cabinet he supported, thus leading to the whole gedoogconstructie. It is imperative for Wilders' political well-being to never have to actual take on the responsibility of governing because his party would crash and burn spectacularly, plus if he somehow finds capable people to have as ministers then they might realize they've become powerful and famous enough that Dear Leader can't easily get rid of them anymore and thus call for democratization of the party and allowing members and all that stuff and he can't run his own little dictatorship/cult anymore. Basically the only chance he has of having actual influence on Dutch politics is precisely the other parties being milquetoast about him, especially the right wing parties. When they say things like "we agree with Wilders about the Moroccan crime problem" (his stated reason for wanting to get rid of Moroccans) or "we agree with him on how Muslims are bad at gays and women's rights" or whatever, then even if they don't agree with his proposed solutions (kicking them all out, banning their religious texts and other outrageous idiocy) that immediately begs the question of "why not?". Then they'll have to talk about what they propose instead, which inevitably will sound like wishy-washy bullshit to the hard right base (seriously, I dare a right wing politician to talk about how they'd want better education programmes and better integration or whatever) due to it not being the simple populism they love so much. So instead they have to come up with simple and tough sounding solutions that are not-quite-as-extreme as what Wilders is proposing. So you'll hear things like tougher sentences, mandatory minimum sentences, revoking Dutch nationality for those with dual nationality and kicking them out if they commit crimes (how convenient that Morocco doesn't allow revoking nationality, thus ensuring all Moroccans have a dual nationality!), more prisons (even if our current ones have room), more police, investigations into Imams who say controversial things and so on and so on. If they'd put their foot down and say they completely disagree with Wilders and he's talking nonsense then they'd never beg the question and thus also would not have to shift rightwards beyond their own control. Wilders' influence politically would be completely reduced unless he'd manage to win a big electoral victory and the only way he'd be able to actually use that victory would be participate in government, at which point everyone could see that his party can't govern. Seriously, they can't, remember all the scandals last time they were in some local governments? Remember how even with the gedoogconstructie he blew up the government when things got a little bit rough? Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
Elliptical Dick posted:I am severely disheartened by the lack of a strong response from the other parties re: Wilders' statement about Moroccans. "The less, the better" is reminiscent of every call to ethnic cleansing ever and imo borderline incitement to harm or kill. Someone from (I think) PvdA compared him to Hitler in a tweet, and THAT is what all the outrage focused on 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
ekuNNN posted:Someone from (I think) PvdA compared him to Hitler in a tweet, and THAT is what all the outrage focused on A Moroccan-Dutch PvdA party-exec, no less. He right away had to (and did) take back his words and apologize, while Wilders can just keep reiterating his poo poo over and over no probs. Calls for ethnic cleansing are fine, but it's really, really rude and not-done to call someone out on it. gently caress this country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 20:48
|
|