|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Le Pen will never be president of France Please tell me what shares you own so I can do the opposite.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Le Pen will never be president of France Empress, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Kassad posted:https://twitter.com/julienbellver/status/856215758770253826 That is a good own but I would not waste €50 of my own money on that icantfindaname posted:not so fast, she's got a mini-me daughter that she's grooming as successor Pretty sure that's her niece, not her daughter. Kind of a cutie too Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Empress, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Macron has to survive until 2022 first, which is not guaranteed How likely is he to actually get any of his reforms passed? I'm imagining the legislature just stonewalls him for 5 years and he has the same approval rating as Hollande at the end
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:not so fast, she's got a mini-me daughter that she's grooming as successor Niece, not daughter. And it's less "grooming as successor" and more "fending off attempts to be succeeded early" because that family is a basket of crabs. Phlegmish posted:Kind of a cutie too Make no mistake, politically she's worse than her aunt because to the usual FN baggage she adds a hefty dose of religious fundamentalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Marine just made it to the second round, which should secure her position for some time to come.Cat Mattress posted:Make no mistake, politically she's worse than her aunt because to the usual FN baggage she adds a hefty dose of religious fundamentalism. Does she take more after her grandfather? I never read anything about him being particularly religious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:05
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Kind of a cutie too Probably the reason Trump is supporting Le Pen in the first place.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:How likely is he to actually get any of his reforms passed? I'm imagining the legislature just stonewalls him for 5 years and he has the same approval rating as Hollande at the end Well since he is a right-winger, I'd say there's every chance that the legislative elections consecrate the right wing's victory and we'll probably get Juppé or somesuch "reassuring" face of neoliberalism as Prime minister. So... pretty likely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Are there any polls showing how the legislative election is likely to go yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Blut posted:Are there any polls showing how the legislative election is likely to go yet? "Clusterfuck" is my best guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Well since he is a right-winger, I'd say there's every chance that the legislative elections consecrate the right wing's victory and we'll probably get Juppé or somesuch "reassuring" face of neoliberalism as Prime minister. What ideological persuasion does the parliamentary Socialist Party actually have? Are they mostly centrist neoliberals or are they more left wing? My impression is that the PS and Republicans are more presidential election coalitions than actual coherent parties, do they have any internal coherence at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:What ideological persuasion does the parliamentary Socialist Party actually have? Are they mostly centrist neoliberals or are they more left wing? My impression is that the PS and Republicans are more presidential election coalitions than actual coherent parties, do they have any internal coherence at all? Just like most centre-left European parties, the French socialists have a centrist third-way wing and a leftist wing. I'm no expert but iirc one reason why Hollande is so unpopular is that he ran as a representative of the leftist wing and then while in power switched to be a third-wayer, so literally everyone hates him. I think Haman was a proper leftist this time around but Hollande poisoned that well really thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:More importantly the National Socialists were absolutely not left wing, they had a few populist soundbites that would have been at home with the welfare policies of Bismarck, but for the most part they were absolutely a party that pushed for ethnic capitalism on the economic level rather than any semblance of socialist policies. poo poo even n the dumb libertarian "all forms of state intervention in the economy are left wing" arc, the nazis weren't that interventionist and kept the lowest taxes of every WW2 belligerent (unless you were an undesirable). A large part of the reason for that has to do with Germany not really mobilizing their economy for real total war until well into the thing, like late 43 or 44 or something, due to wanting to avoid dissent at home which is what they believed contributed to defeat in WW1 (since obviously Germany was never defeated militarily in that war). The solution to this obviously was to basically pillage occupied countries and enslave their populations as industrial workforce in your factories. Nazi economic policy really was a confusing mess and there wasn't much concrete policy at all, one of the few things they were hellbent on from seizing power was vastly increasing military spending and supporting agriculture. Then there's various welfare programs, and stuff like subsidized vacations and such which certainly don't strike one as right-wing though their purpose largely was to support the nazi project of "creating the new Germany", the whole "new man" thing being something that all totalitarian states kind of dabbled in. Industrial concerns were largely left to compete for influence and contracts, in what can't really be called a free market but which bears a lot of similarity to the institutional chaos that characterized the Third Reich in general where various departments and power structures competed with each other for power and influence and favor with Hitler, which really left Hitler the most essential and influential piece of the puzzle (not to mention irreplaceable). Defining left-wing/right-wing solely by economic policy isn't really that fruitful in the end, because it comes down to more than that. Things like ideology, rethoric, power base and end goals. Imperial Germany was very clearly not what we would call a left-wing state yet introduced the world's first comprehensive welfare and insurance scheme. Left and right have also historically meant different things, where in the past when the concept came to be the left-wing was classical liberals and nationalists and the right were conservatives and reactionary monarchists, then nationalism became kind of a conservative-identified kind of thing with the unification of Germany, and with the rise of socialism they increasingly came to define the left wing with the classical liberals ending up on the right wing. The nazis are solidly on the extreme right by way of their radical nationalism, anti-semitism and anti-communism (quite simply their economic policies are not what define them). Though the extreme right has always had a confused relationship with the conservative right (and has disdained liberal democrats). Conservative, reactionary and authoritarian politicians often thought they could work with them as the lesser evil against socialism and then ofcourse you have arch-imperialists like Churchill not even having a second thought about whom he viewed as more dangerous between Hitler and Stalin, which might muddy the waters and such a bit more. It might also get confusing for some when you have WWII Germans, including aristocratic generals, saying and writing that what they thought was important in the war was to defend Europe from bolshevism and to "free Germany of the tyranny of English capitalism". Ardent nazis and many others saw bolshevism and financial capitalism as basically two sides of the same coin (which ofcourse tied into anti-semitism in a big way), you'll also find a lot of German aristocrats in WW1 having these weird (to us at least, considering who they are) specific "anti-capitalist" views, it's kind of similar maybe to the extreme right's hatred of globalization. Really though things aren't simple. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Defining left-wing/right-wing solely by economic policy isn't really that fruitful in the end, because it comes down to more than that. Things like ideology, rethoric, power base and end goals. Imperial Germany was very clearly not what we would call a left-wing state yet introduced the world's first comprehensive welfare and insurance scheme. Left and right have also historically meant different things, where in the past when the concept came to be the left-wing was classical liberals and nationalists and the right were conservatives and reactionary monarchists, then nationalism became kind of a conservative-identified kind of thing with the unification of Germany, and with the rise of socialism they increasingly came to define the left wing with the classical liberals ending up on the right wing. Also even before the war part of the Nazis' economic "success" came about by systematically disenfranchising a segment of their population based on loosely-defined ethnic categories, confiscating their wealth with no compensation, and passing laws forbidding them from maintaining employment, which meant there was a lot of wealth to be redistributed to various German elites and a lot of jobs that opened up for unemployed Germans to fill. To a dumbshit libertarian that may appear to be state intervention in the economy but to any sane person it's much more identifiable as extreme right-wing racial discourse that happened to have an economic component. It's in no way comparable to contemporary left-wing economics and much closer to contemporary right-wing ideas about deporting immigrants so that natives can have their jobs, in that it's simultaneously a social and economic policy based around advantaging a group and disadvantaging another group defined by something other than their economic status, i.e. by race or citizenship rather than by class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Also even before the war part of the Nazis' economic "success" came about by systematically disenfranchising a segment of their population based on loosely-defined ethnic categories, confiscating their wealth with no compensation, and passing laws forbidding them from maintaining employment, which meant there was a lot of wealth to be redistributed to various German elites and a lot of jobs that opened up for unemployed Germans to fill. To a dumbshit libertarian that may appear to be state intervention in the economy but to any sane person it's much more identifiable as extreme right-wing racial discourse that happened to have an economic component. It's in no way comparable to contemporary left-wing economics and much closer to contemporary right-wing ideas about deporting immigrants so that natives can have their jobs, in that it's simultaneously a social and economic policy based around advantaging a group and disadvantaging another group defined by something other than their economic status, i.e. by race or citizenship rather than by class. Nazi Germany was essentially run on pillaging the possessions of anyone deemed non-Aryan. Part of the reason why war was so such an inseprable part of their "program", you couldn't pillage off the rather small Jewish community in Germany and various domestic political enemies forever. The whole idea of Lebensraum and creating an empire in eastern Europe is pretty much also born of this concept. It even kind of preceded the nazis, when, after defeating Russia, in WW1 the German army instituted draconian policies in the Ukraine and other policies in order to ship food supplies back to blockade-starved Germany (Imperial Germany also conscripted tens of thousands of French and Belgian civilians in their occupied zone for work in German industries, many of whom were teenagers or barely adults). This idea of sustaining the war effort and fending off the blockade (which Germany really had no credible way to truly fight) by conquest and seizure of occupied nations' resources and populations to fuel German industry, supply its armies and feed its people was vastly expanded upon in WW2. Especially so with Generalplan Ost where the plan was basically to just starve most of Western Russia and Ukraine to death, dedicate the area in its entirety to feeding Germany and enslave the survivors. e: Also, to speak of France, I find it pretty funny (terrifying?) that this old poster seems to accurately sum up FN's politics. 
Randarkman fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
 Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:
Nice filter work from M. Hollande.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Hollande pretty much won in the end, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:A large part of the reason for that has to do with Germany not really mobilizing their economy for real total war until well into the thing, like late 43 or 44 or something, due to wanting to avoid dissent at home which is what they believed contributed to defeat in WW1 (since obviously Germany was never defeated militarily in that war). The solution to this obviously was to basically pillage occupied countries and enslave their populations as industrial workforce in your factories. Nazi economic policy really was a confusing mess and there wasn't much concrete policy at all, one of the few things they were hellbent on from seizing power was vastly increasing military spending and supporting agriculture. Then there's various welfare programs, and stuff like subsidized vacations and such which certainly don't strike one as right-wing though their purpose largely was to support the nazi project of "creating the new Germany", the whole "new man" thing being something that all totalitarian states kind of dabbled in. Industrial concerns were largely left to compete for influence and contracts, in what can't really be called a free market but which bears a lot of similarity to the institutional chaos that characterized the Third Reich in general where various departments and power structures competed with each other for power and influence and favor with Hitler, which really left Hitler the most essential and influential piece of the puzzle (not to mention irreplaceable). no, it's simple enough. the left are materialists, the right are culturalists, in that they believe 'culture' AKA irrational traditions and customs handed down from time immemorial, are the causative drivers of social change and transformation. liberals believe rational individuals are there's a whole discourse of trying to plug politics into the kind of classification you see done by autistic nerds on the internet on wiki pages, and it's awful and those people should be sent to syria in exchange for innocent civilian refugees
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:From the beginning he has framed his candidacy as "I'm not the leader of this movement, I'm just here to carry a program and I have no mandate to tell people how to vote in the second round".  I'm the 50% of self-proclaimed anti-fascist leftwingers who can't actually bring themselves to vote against the fascist candidate in a head-to-head contest. Edible Hat posted:Hollande pretty much won in the end, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
I like how Fillon endorsed Macron but his voters are nearly evenly split between Macron and Le Pen. Reminder that this would be a contest between Fillon and Le Pen if Fillon hadn't massively imploded at the last minute due to embezzling a million Euros from the French government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Sergg posted:I like how Fillon endorsed Macron but his voters are nearly evenly split between Macron and Le Pen. I just thank jesus he was so comically corrupt and it all came out at the right time. Now of course I've jinxed it and Macron will pull a Hilary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Isn't Macron up by like 20 points? I mean he'd have to gently caress up pretty drat bad to lose. It's worrying that Le Pen made it this far (even though it was predictable) but it'll likely be it, though a guy like Macron won't really do anything to address any of the issues that have caused the current situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Not only is he nearly 30 points ahead, the final poll had some seriously, obscenely close margins of error. Which won't stop the "But Trump" crowd from kvetching about polls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
lemondrizzle has to include a picture of stalin every time he posts in this thread from now on or i'm probating him
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
The nest thing that can happen is la pen gets elected and the EU ceases to exist. Because otherwise when the EU slowdies Putin will have enough conventional force just stemroll eastern europe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Make no mistake, politically she's worse than her aunt because to the usual FN baggage she adds a hefty dose of religious fundamentalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:not so fast, she's got a mini-me daughter that she's grooming as successor that one is an absolute nutter even by fascist standard tho
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:the freemasons and jews destroyed the natural social order of king, church and country. Is that your opinion or what fascists believe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Results of who came first for each Departments (Yellow: Macron, Black : Le Pen, Blue : Fillon, Red : Mélenchon) for shame Corsica 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Lmao loving corsica, give them independence and good luck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
at least i live in a mélenchon department neuf trois yo
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:Lmao loving corsica, give them independence and good luck. pogroms would probably start the next day
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
What's the big blue blob, i'm thinking subsidized industrial farmers ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Why is the southern coast fascist? All the pieds-noirs? Also why is the west coast more liberal? Is it regional identitarian/separatist stuff or is it a different economic situation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
because west coast is always the best coast
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:Is that your opinion or what fascists believe? I'd let you guess but I half expect you to take my description of the roots of the far right as a statement of personal ideology, so no. Also lol, Le Pen came in fourth in most of Brittany (inc. its rightful capital) and Aquitaine. quote:Is it regional identitarian/separatist stuff or is it a different economic situation? The areas with the biggest uptake for Le Pen in the french heartlands are incredibly rural in general, like way, way more. Otherwise I'm not entirely sure. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:because west coast is always the best coast the best coast is obviously the coasts that surround those islands that voted for Melenchon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
unpacked robinhood posted:What's the big blue blob, i'm thinking subsidized industrial farmers ? Don't know about the other two, but the bottom département is the one Fillon's from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 06:24
|
|
