|
How strong is the National Front in France as a political party/influence?
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
John Nance Garner posted:So, I know Uzbekistan isn't exactly Europe, but political dissidents have been boiled to death as recently as c. 2002 or so. Not to mention that all elections are completely unfair and the current President has been in power since 1999, with the Executive having near-complete power over the Legislative. Isn't Belarus in a similar position with Alexander Lukashenko?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
General China posted:The Catholic Church aint doing so well on historical dictators during the 20th century either. Its got all the western european ones- Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. Its also got all the South American ones too. Didn't most of the Catholic Church leadership also support Salazar for a good part of his reign in Portugal?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
KazigluBey posted:Is the banning of political parties always wrong in your mind, such as with the Romanian New Right? How about the Meir Kahane's Kach party, a literal Jewish fascist party that was banned in Israel for being too blatantly fascist/racist?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Who said anything about banning people from voting? I'd ensure that a party that advocated legislation banning inter-racial marriage was banned though. What would stop an informal coalition/caucus to exist via 'independent' elected representatives/senators/MPs coalescing together on several issues (such as miscegenation, for example) to push through such legislation through the legislature? You can ban parties/official organizations that represent such beliefs, but you're not eliminating the beliefs themselves unless you literally make it a thoughtcrime to even believe in stuff like miscegenation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:You can never eradicate ideas, eugenics among them. But when a political representative, whether part of a coalition or otherwise starts advocating for it as a policy, checks and balances should be in place to immediately remove that person from a political position. What checks and balances? If you're not going to advocate making it illegal to believe in things such as miscegenation, what possible recourse is there if the rep/senator/MP is doing what they are legally entitled to do as an elected official?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:The fact that those people are finding it harder and harder to get elected each year? What's stopping a guy who would have ran as a member of, say, the American Nazi Party (which ostensibly would be banned from the election process) from running as a member of the GOP (assuming it wasn't banned) and using the Southern Strategy to dogwhistle the poo poo out stuff like miscegenation, homophobia, etc? I mean, I don't really see how the chances are reduced for someone like Steve King being (re)elected if he's allowed to promote his policies, given that he'd (more than likely) still get funding from big interests to help in his campaigns even if the GOP itself was banned somehow, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Except that the 14% that believes in anti-miscegenation legislation will vote based on those beliefs regardless if you ban Nazi, KKK, etc. parties or not, so short of disenfranchising them through some sort of thoughtcrime mechanism, they're still going to impact the local (and therefore national) scene regardless of how you try to affect the window dressing that are formal parties and organizations.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:Ultimately? Nothing, at least in any particular instance. There are plenty of despicable politicians and constituencies in this country, but the long-run demographics seem to run against them and the direction over the past 50 years has been fairly consistently towards racial equality and minority rights. So long as you have voter ID laws, striking down of protections such as the VRA and other mechanisms to suppress the vote (particularly on a state and local level in order to enable favorable gerrymandering in order to maintain power on a state and federal level in the future), call me skeptical.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:Both voting restrictions and gerrymandering are Bad Things, but I still think that setting up an apparatus to ban people from voting (or imprison them) based on their political beliefs and ban parties based on the current ruling party's definition of "fascist" are far, far worse ideas. I'm not advocating disenfranchisement, I'm merely pointing out that it's the only way to actually eliminate fascist sentiment from the political process and that bans of political parties and organizations is merely window dressing since the voters with those beliefs are going to vote based on them regardless of whether or not a formal organization exists. In short, there's no realistic way you're ever eliminating fascist sentiment in the political process given its electoral nature (short of some utopian world where all problems have disappeared and there is no situation that allows fascist beliefs to fester). Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Aug 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:There is a vast gulf between the strategies of outwardly racist parties like Golden Dawn and more civilized parties like UKIP or FN. "Ebola would solve Europe's immigration problem" - Jean-Marie Le Pen, 'civilized' Front National founder. Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 00:36 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 00:29
|
|