|
LemonDrizzle posted:Bild gets right to the heart of the matter as ever: Oh my god, we need to nuke Germany and then perhaps we can rebuild a sane Europe once this cancer has been excised from it.
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Oh my god, we need to nuke Germany and then perhaps we can rebuild a sane Europe once this cancer has been excised from it. Looking at the polls, Germany is the least of France's problems: E: And don't even get me started on UK. German economic policy is about to be the shining beacon of left wing policy once the overton window readjusts.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:here is a happy poll to cheer everyone up! how do you make a government with that
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:how do you make a government with that It's a two round system. EM and LR will scoop almost everything.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:how do you make a government with that While making this face: 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:It's a two round system. EM and LR will scoop almost everything. oh i had a brain fart for a moment
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:It's a two round system. EM and LR will scoop almost everything. Seriously, why is the goverment system of the 5th republic so badly designed? America gets a pass because it's an experimental prototype from prehistoric times, but what's France's excuse?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Seriously, why is the goverment system of the 5th republic so badly designed? America gets a pass because it's an experimental prototype from prehistoric times, but what's France's excuse? Bring back the Third Republic.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Seriously, why is the goverment system of the 5th republic so badly designed? America gets a pass because it's an experimental prototype from prehistoric times, but what's France's excuse? de gaule stronk, puny parties die!!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Bring back the Third Republic. if only a candidate had campaigned for a sixth republic
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Seriously, why is the goverment system of the 5th republic so badly designed? America gets a pass because it's an experimental prototype from prehistoric times, but what's France's excuse? De Gaulle wanted a strong and stable government, and also, by the metrics of this thread, was a fascist
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:if only a candidate had campaigned for a sixth republic I have it on good authority this person hates refugees, is behind everything that happens in Venezuela and writes Putin fan fiction on his spare time.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
But enough about Trump
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:It kinda has to be because otherwise it would show with the economy performing poorly no? If it was a significant sum, like you claim here, it should by your own logic have significant consequences. Alas, such consequences must either be absent or 'trivial' as they clearly do not seem to impact the health of the wider economy. It's probably not possible to get through to you that billions are a lot even if they are normal numbers in government spending? I'll try to explain by example! The Finnish government in an attempt to reduce the deficit decided to cut the budget of Aalto University by the, according to you, utterly trivial sum of 136 million between 2016-2018. Alas, this means 300+ people will lose their jobs. Government budgets are pretty carefully balanced and even larger economies in Europe can't just throw billions all over without consequences at some point, they might often have to loan it unless you are Germany or something. Or were you one of the posters who think loaning eternally is ok because  quote:And no, there is no billions of € spent monthly, try billions of € spent yearly which is less by a factor of 12. We're talking about Germany and Sweden so kaff, hurk. (And not more than a few economists say Sweden hides migration costs under other parts of the budget, Tullberg, Sinandaj etc.) Admit it the whole migration stuff just doesn't really interest you that much, right? You just want to disagree with a right-winger.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
86 billion over 4 years for salvaging hundreds of thousands/millions of lives? Sounds a pretty good deal, 86 billion is an average banker. I'll start the guillotine.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
The 5th was literally De Gaulle's temper tantrum. France was His, and not some milquetoast social democrat's.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
That De Gaulle fella sounds like a fascist 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Gaullism is fascist in the way Peronism is: it can get there and walks suspiciously like a jackbooted duck, but it's more like a generalized poison in the french right that everyone swallows varying doses of.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:That De Gaulle fella sounds like a fascist
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
I can't believe this thread is poo poo talking one of the greatest French leaders. Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:That De Gaulle fella sounds like a fascist If De Gaulle were alive and heard you say this he would literally rise out of his chair to strangle you. The man fought in both world wars!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
whats your circonscription frenchies im in a communist circoncription in seine-st-denis, i think it's a safe-ish seat for the france insoumise (cantons of la courneuve, stains etc) Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 14:15 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
 Just a reminder to the Macron cheerleaders- almost nobody likes his program. Watch the space for legislative elections.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Fiction posted:
It's a huge loving travesty that a political platform that is supported by less than <23% of the population can now get fully enacted, in a self-identified democratic system. This is bonquers.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:It's a huge loving travesty that a political platform that is supported by less than <23% of the population can now get fully enacted, in a self-identified democratic system. This is bonquers. Well, it really depends. I don't know much about the French system but I do know there's gotta be some stuff happening between now and legislative elections that will complicate things, and thus what he can actually accomplish.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:It's a huge loving travesty that a political platform that is supported by less than <23% of the population can now get fully enacted, in a self-identified democratic system. This is bonquers. As if anyone reads political platforms anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Fiction posted:
That's not really a reasonable assertion since the question asks "which of the following factors was most important in your decision to vote for Macron?" - it's perfectly possible that someone might like his program but see stopping Le Pen (or the "political renewal Macron represents") as a more important factor.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:whats your circonscription frenchies http://www.lemonde.fr/data/6eme-circonscription-du-loiret-04506/ A PS woman hanging on, she won in 2012 with 50.14% of the voices in a départment that is very right wing. Her adversary then (and this year) is a local LR big wig (président de la communauté d'agglomération) with a good chance of taking the seat. Considering the electorate at best the seat could go for EM, depending on the campaign, but it's not like there's any serious polling done at this level.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:That De Gaulle fella sounds like a fascist pretty much yeah. he was a fascist who got a pass because he sat in london as an allied mouthpiece
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:41
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:That's not really a reasonable assertion since the question asks "which of the following factors was most important in your decision to vote for Macron?" - it's perfectly possible that someone might like his program but see stopping Le Pen (or the "political renewal Macron represents") as a more important factor. It's also important to keep in mind that this refers to his 65% vote. Obviously a good share of those voters have preventing MLP as their priority, otherwise they would have voted for him in the first round.
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Direct elections to head of state/government are a terrible idea, along with referenda of all types this was apparant from the very beginning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_1848 quote:The constitution only included provision for one round, and in the absence of a majority for any candidate, the National Assembly would have decided the victor.[1] Louis-Eugène Cavaignac seemed certain to win, and the Assembly would have most certainly elected him in the absence of an absolute majority. I'm glad our politics has advanced as far as it has over these last 170 years
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Well he was put in place by the Americans.... Very, very reluctantly. FDR dragged his feet for, what must have seemed to de Gaulle, for an eternity about recognizing him and his people as the provisional government of France. He was hellbent on not recognizing any French government until elections had been held and was more than open to keeping the country under the administration of the US military until that time, he saw de Gaulle as a potential dictator.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I can't believe this thread is poo poo talking one of the greatest French leaders. The man fled his country cus of some protests in '68.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Very, very reluctantly. FDR dragged his feet for, what must have seemed to de Gaulle, for an eternity about recognizing him and his people as the provisional government of France. He was hellbent on not recognizing any French government until elections had been held and was more than open to keeping the country under the administration of the US military until that time, he saw de Gaulle as a potential dictator. Well, he wasn't wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'm glad our politics has advanced as far as it has over these last 170 years Randarkman posted:Very, very reluctantly. FDR dragged his feet for, what must have seemed to de Gaulle, for an eternity about recognizing him and his people as the provisional government of France. He was hellbent on not recognizing any French government until elections had been held and was more than open to keeping the country under the administration of the US military until that time, he saw de Gaulle as a potential dictator. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 15:36 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Government budgets are pretty carefully balanced and even larger economies in Europe can't just throw billions all over without consequences at some point, they might often have to loan it unless you are Germany or something. Or were you one of the posters who think loaning eternally is ok because Come again? Loaning eternally? See this is where the whole part about you literally not being part of our reality thing comes up again because when we look at Sweden and Germany, the relevant countries in refugee reception and thus sustainability of costs, reality contradicts you.   If the costs are unsustainable it doesn't show in national debt which is decreasing because both economies are doing great.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Please stop repeating trite liberal talking points. Liberals literally named Hitler chancellor. Okay, this was a few pages back, but I wanted to adress this talking point not only because it represents a sentiment I've seen cropping up not only here but in other threads as well, but also because it's patently false. Liberals did very decidedly *not* install Hitler, instead a group of conservatives with a deep-seated distrust of democracy did. First, let's look at the political actors of late 1932/early 1933. There were 14 parties represented in the Reichstag, of which by far the largest was the NSDAP with 33,1% of the vote, followed by the SPD (which was pro-democratic, but still followed its decidedly socialist Heidelberg platform of 1925) at 20,4%, the communist KPD at 16,9%, the Catholic conservative (though many of Germany's social and labour reforms of the 1920s like the introduction of unemployment insurance were driven to a large degree by them) Zentrum at 11,9%, the (nationalist right-wing with a strong tendency to anti-democratic extremism) DNVP at 8,3%, the (Catholic conservative & strongly federalist) BVP at 3,1% and - as the last party to play any substantial role in imperial politics - the national-liberal DVP at 1,9%. Of these only the Zentrum, the BVP and the DVP can really be put into an American-style "liberalism" camp, and together they didn't even get 17% of the national vote. This doesn't change much when you look at the other parties in the Reichstag - if you're generous and designate all of them except the anti-republican Thüringer Landbund as "liberal", then the liberal vote share altogether rises to a whopping 19,3%. By the time Hitler became chancellor, "liberal" (and I can't stress this enough, applying "liberal" in an American sense to Weimar-era German politics borders on the nonsensical) parties were only a marginal phenomenon within parliament. Now let's take a look at who the political players were that made Hitler chancellor. On the face of it this was president Paul von Hindenburg, the archetypical representative of Imperial Germany's aristocratic and military class who had first been elected president in 1925 and then again in 1932. Make no mistake: Hindenburg hated the Weimar Republic; he was a monarchist to the bone and only agreed to accept the nomination as president because he felt that his duty as a German compelled him to do so. Hindenburg surrounded himself with a small circle of confidants and allies on whom he would increadingly depend as he himself grew older; it was this group (known in German as the Kamarilla) that would ultimately elevate Hitler to chancellor. Who were these people, and what were their political stances and visions? Hindenburg, as I've already said, was deeply distrustful of parliamentary democracy in principle, and quite a few historians argue that he actively worked to undermine the republic during his time as president. One of his closest confidants was his son Otto, like his father an aristocratic military man who disliked the republic; Elard von Oldenburg-Januschau, a Prussian nobleman who ahd the reputation as one of Germany's most anti-democratic politicians even back during the Imperial era and openly stated in his memoirs that he tried to convince Hindenburg of shutting down parliament and turning Germany into a dictatorship; Wilhelm von Preußen, the son of the old Kaiser who hoped to restore Monarchy by making Hitler chancellor; Otto Meissner, Hindenburg's top aide who organised the negotiations with the NSDAP and would go on to become a minister under Hitler, and of course Franz von Papen, the Catholic nobleman with dreams of making Germany into an integralist state with the nobility and the clergy at the helm who played the main role in all of the intrigues preceding Hitler's appointment. Now, who of these men would qualify as "liberal"? "Liberal" - as in non-socialist and pro-democratic/-republican parties and politicians were growing increasingly rare during the early 1930s. Chancellor Brüning had tried to save the Republic and had destroyed its fundaments in the process, as he had to resort to rule by executive orders, bypassing a parliament that hadn't had elected him (Brüning only was chancellor by the grace of Hindenburg) and that saw larger and larger vote shares for the extremist parties since the 1930 election, a development which was in parts also caused by Brüning's strict austerity policy. In 1932 Hindenburg fired him and replaced him with von Papen, who tried to create an alliance with the NSDAP and therefore didn't take his opportunity to ban it, dissolving instead the SPD-led government of Prussia. And even Kurt von Schleicher, von Papen's successor and Hitler's immediate predecessor who would later be murdererd by the Nazis in 1934 for the crime of trying to avert a Hitler-led cabinet had had no qualms with the idea of a depowered parliament. Or, to sum it up: Literally none of the people directly involved in Hitler becoming chancellor were "liberal" or even pro-republican in any way, shape or form. Instead the main players were former aristocrats, most with close ties to Prussian and Imperial German military circles who dreamed of reinstating the Hohenzollern monarchy or creating some other sort of authoritarian government, and of course Hitler himself. Sorry for this rant, but seeing blatantly wrong statements like this thrown around as "fact" is something that really irks me. By blaming "liberals" for the Nazis, you are not only distorting history, but directly making it impossible for any lessons to be drawn out of the past and applied to the present.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
So basically CDU austerity policy caused Hitler? Once again, excellent that our politics works totally different these days
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Come again? Loaning eternally? See this is where the whole part about you literally not being part of our reality thing comes up again because when we look at Sweden and Germany, the relevant countries in refugee reception and thus sustainability of costs, reality contradicts you. I appreciate your point, but those axes makes me want to murder you. Ligur posted:loaning eternally is ok
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:The 5th was literally De Gaulle's temper tantrum. France was His, and not some milquetoast social democrat's. A very unfair assessment. De Gaulle had precise ideas about how an effective state apparatus should work, with a president that can preside, and a government that governs. That is to say, the prez is there to fix the overall direction of policies, what the country should try to do, and he oversees stuff relative to foreign diplomacy and defense. The government handles the nitty-gritty. Unfortunately, most of the Fifth Republic presidents after him were interested more in governing than in presiding. Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:That De Gaulle fella sounds like a fascist De Gaulle never cared about his personal power. He was ideologically driven, not selfish. Look at any fascist regime and you'll see plenty of embezzlement, nepotism, and corruption. The best proof that he wasn't fascist was that when he organized a referendum to enact some change he wanted, and the outcome was a rejection of his proposal, he simply quit. He understood that what he wanted to do was not what the French people wanted, so he felt he no longer had legitimacy to rule, and he resigned. Compare with his successors who, when a referendum fails, they just try again but only going for Parliament approval this time, no more popular consultation. Toplowtech posted:Well he was put in place by the Americans.... Nah, the Americans wanted Laval. De Gaulle pissed the yankees off considerably by allowing France to be officially in the victorious camp instead of the vanquished camp. They had an AMGOT system ready and all, even had already printed American Francs for the American-controlled regime they wanted to put in place, and there they had De Gaulle racing them to Paris with the FFI and derailing all their plans. icantfindaname posted:So basically CDU austerity policy caused Hitler? Once again, excellent that our politics works totally different these days Yes. Austerity is the leading cause of fascism, this has been verified historically in 100% of cases. Every time there was a fascist or quasi-fascist regime, there was austerity before. And every time there was austerity, fascist political forces have been bolstered. Whenever a politician or economist says they want more austerity, they are actually saying they want more fascism. Both notions are basically synonymous; just like "fire" and "burning" are. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So basically CDU austerity policy caused Hitler? Once again, excellent that our politics works totally different these days System Metternich posted:a development which was in parts also caused by Brüning's strict austerity policy. History doesn't lend itself easily to snappy one-liners, especially when you want to draw viable conclusions for the present. Brüning's austerity definitely made the lives of many harder, driving them towards extremist parties. But on the other hand his government, a minority coalition tolerated by the SPD, proved itself to be relatively stable and might have survived the Great Depression (the next elections would have taken place only in 1934) if Brüning and Hindenburg hadn't had a falling-out in 1932 caused by Brüning being supported by Catholics and Social Democrats (both of which Hindenburg hated) as well as by the Osthilfeskandal, a scandal caused by Brüning trying to give parcels of land of bankrupt large landowners to the unemployed which didn't go over well with Hindenburg's noble and land-owning friends at all. Brüning's austerity played a supporting and maybe even important role in Hitler's rise, but in the end it were Hindenburg and von Papen who voluntarily gave him the chancellorship.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 16:17
|
|