TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 214

Thread: Being immigrated in France what can happen to me if Marine Le Pen wins the elections

  1. #51
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    You wouldn't be surprised if you actually understood the Muslim culture rather than just making the incredibly racist assumption that all immigrants are exactly the same.....not that anyone who isn't from there truly does, but I like to think that living there gave me a leg up in that regard.
    Have a word with yourself Tony - which Muslim culture for starters. Also, this bizarre delusion you have that you somehow have singular familiarity with Other Cultures gets more bizarre every time you repeat it.

  2. #52
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by raph View Post
    ...abandoning all pretense of being left.
    Oh, cut that nonsense out. It's a runoff. Picking the "lesser evil" isn't abandoning principles, it's upholding them.

  3. #53
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2006
    Location: France (Saint-Gobain)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    You wouldn't be surprised if you actually understood the Muslim culture rather than just making the incredibly racist assumption that all immigrants are exactly the same.....not that anyone who isn't from there truly does, but I like to think that living there gave me a leg up in that regard.
    errr... i wasn´t talking about Muslim, i was talking about people that have origin in my country. I´m Portuguese and i´m not racist, i´ve seen videos where some Portuguese immigrants simply don't want immigrants in France, not my case, as far as i´m concearned we should have the frontiers open, ok, ?
    And Portugal is not a Muslim country, its mainly a Catholic European country next to Spain, ok? Damm how is it possible many people don't know Portugal, or where it is located?.
    Last edited by Cardia; 24th Apr 2017 at 15:28.

  4. #54
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2011
    Location: Montpellier, France
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Oh, cut that nonsense out. It's a runoff. Picking the "lesser evil" isn't abandoning principles, it's upholding them.
    How is choosing a candidate you hate to eliminate another "upholding" principles? I'm a traditional Leftist and there is no way in hell I'm voting for either Macron or Le Pen, lesser evil or not. They do not represent my values in the slightest, both in terms of economics and overall politics. I despise Macron's economic program and Le Pen's will never work. They're both terrible candidates and terrible potential presidents in my eyes. People who say they're Leftists and vote for Macron are lying to themselves, especially with this ultra-liberal Right wing economic program of his.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Oh, cut that nonsense out. It's a runoff. Picking the "lesser evil" isn't abandoning principles, it's upholding them.
    Pay attention, kid. I was absolutely not talking about calling to vote against Le Pen. If you follow the history of the Socialist party, their progression towards the right can be traced back to the mid-eghties, but the last five years have made it pretty clear that they are the Socialist Party in name only. Hollande five years ago: "My enemy is Big Finance". Five years on, not only did he do nothing of the sort, he engaged in policies that made bankers and financiers wealthier. His big stand against the ECB and Merkel never happened. He used the 49.3 amendment of the Constitution to pass laws against the will of the people and his own party in the Parliament that destroy traditional workers protections and make executives and shareholders more powerful and of course richer in the process.

    Hollande's only participation in the campaign, after swearing he would abstain from making any comment before the 1st round to preserve the dignity of the office, was to denounce the heinous behaviour of one of the candidates. Was it Le Pen, who shamelessly denied that France took part in deporting thousands of Jews during World War 2, a crime that can get you 1 year in prison and a 35k fine? No of course not, because who gives a shit? It was Mélenchon's unexpected and viral rise in the polls that had to be stopped at any cost, bringing up an obscure part of his programme and painting it as if the Red Army would invade Paris on the 8th of May, nevermind that the USSR has been dead and buried for twenty years. He called his campaign "foul smelling" and "dangerous", strongly hinted that he was supporting Macron and not his own party's candidate Hamon, and said absolutely nothing about Le Pen, her ilk, and their program or declarations.

    There was one viable candidate that threatened the establishment, and it's not Le Pen. The Front National have been the useful idiots of the 5th Republic since Mitterand back in the late 70's, easy to bring up and scare the masses into keeping up the "classic" left/right status quo. The real change, the one they were afraid of, came for what's left of the "real" left, a group that was pretty much left for dead and neglected, it was the creation of a new constitution and the renegotiation of treaties, and both things were a mortal threat to their privileges and comfortable way of life.

    Well they won this time. But you can be godamn sure they're gonna have to fight for the Legislatives and beyond, while the direct threat may be gone, they won't get rid of us that easily.

  6. #56
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2006
    Location: France (Saint-Gobain)
    Benoit Hamon seems to have a good program, PS in France has less power while in Portugal PS is most of the times the leading political party.

  7. #57
    To be honest his program was indeed probably good enough, certainly not as radical as JLM but with good stuff and a strong push for environmental protection, for which he was backed by the Greens. He would have been my second choice, he just never had a chance to win, first because a lot of Party executives "betrayed" and joined Macron, and then because he antagonized the rest who were still loyal, and ran a very poor campaign as a result. He also had the terrible disadvantage of being the PS candidate, what with it being the party of a despised President who has the lowest approval ratings in history (we're talking low, here, like about 4% or something...)

  8. #58
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by raph View Post
    Pay attention, kid. I was absolutely not talking about calling to vote against Le Pen.
    I'm sorry, I read more into your post than was there, then. I'm still sore about Bernie "supporters" ignoring Sanders himself to (in part) hand our presidency to Trump (AKA "or Bust"). (One of the fun things about such a close result is that virtually anything that measurably swayed the vote towards Trump can also be said to have effectively put him in office.)

    Meanwhile, I see someone else snatched up the purity banner before it even hit the ground...

    Quote Originally Posted by skacky View Post
    How is choosing a candidate you hate to eliminate another "upholding" principles?
    Because it generates a result less out of line with those principles, while failing to do so does the opposite - by inaction, policy moves further from your principles than it would if you had. Any remotely democratic form of government absolutely requires compromise; arguably, that's kind of the point. Yeah, it sucks sometimes. But it can suck a lot worse.

  9. #59
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Sanders said.

    http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders...m-how-to-vote/
    I think if we end up losing — and I hope we do not — and if Secretary Clinton wins, it is incumbent upon her to tell millions of people who right now do not believe in establishment politics or establishment economics, who have serious misgivings about a candidate who has received millions of dollars from Wall Street and other special interests.

    She has got to go out to you and to millions of other people and say, yes, I think the United States should join the rest of the industrialized world and take on the private insurance companies and the greed of the drug companies and pass a Medicare for all.

    I think that says Secretary Clinton, that for the young people in this country, you should not have to leave college $30,000, $50,000, $70,000 in debt because we’re going to make as many other countries around the world do, public colleges and universities tuition-free. I think Secretary Clinton is going to have to explain to millions of young people and a lot of other people that climate change is a real crisis and incrementalism is just not going to solve it … she is going to have to come on board and say, yes, I know it’s hard, but I am going to take on the fossil fuel industry and pass a carbon tax.

    So the — the point that I am making is, it is incumbent upon Secretary Clinton to reach out not only to my supporters, but to all of the American people, with an agenda that they believe will represent the interests of working families, lower income people, the middle class, those of us who are concerned about the environment and not just big money interests.
    Sanders had my vote till he turned and endorsed/supported the very thing he was supposed to be against.

  10. #60
    And sorry about the "kid" part, Pyrian, that was condescending. Reading the fallout today has been a bit of a roller coaster...

  11. #61
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    Sanders had my vote till he turned and endorsed/supported the very thing he was supposed to be against.
    This whole "If I can't have it all, then I'll settle for ashes and ruins" mindset is primarily responsible for all the shit we're currently finding ourselves wading through.

    Think of it like this: Hillary, while very much an establishment candidate, had politics that at least leaned more towards Sanders in comparison to Trump's. And considering the fact that her own constituency heavily favors Sanders, she would at some point have to at some point at least consider, if not acquiesce, to their demands. After Sander's defeat, if you wanted your cheap education and healthcare, it would've been better to hold your nose, and hitch your wagon to the Clinton campaign, tasteless though it may have been.

    But you didn't. And what has this staunch adherence to your principals gained you? A president who could bring our currently shaky-on-its-feet healthcare system to its knees with the stroke of a pen, and who has nominated a cabinet that will make education even less affordable through their policies. By standing up for your principals for principals sake, you've lost everything you've hoped to achieve.

    Sanders understands that sometimes politicians need to politick. The Bernie Bros. very quickly need to learn the same.

  12. #62
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    sorry, but being "pragmatic" got us exactly where we are today, where the worst in GOVT and the worst in society can go head to head and get votes simply because of the magic "R" or "D" next to their name.

    so glad she lost. had she won most who complain about cheeto hitlers deeds would stay silent like they did when oclueless was in office.. Funny trump get's to be hitler when it was Obama who passed indefinite detention w/o trial into law. at what point we are some of you going to say ENOUGH to "politicking"? my principals don't change based on the letter next to the clown in charge.

  13. #63

  14. #64
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Pragmatism wasn't responsible for the terrible candidates we ended up being stuck with. It's the lack of pragmatism, and the complete denial of compromise that's lead us to this position.

    And as I've explained previously, yeah, Obama does deserve blame for not vetoing the indefinite detention law when he had the chance. But the people who wrote said law, who decided to slap it into a standard military spending bill? They held their seats in congress, and now their party controls 2 of the 3 branches of our government. How have your raw principals benefitted you?

  15. #65
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    1.Pragmatism wasn't responsible for the terrible candidates we ended up being stuck with. It's the lack of pragmatism, and the complete denial of compromise that's lead us to this position.

    2.And as I've explained previously, yeah, Obama does deserve blame for not vetoing the indefinite detention law when he had the chance. But the people who wrote said law, who decided to slap it into a standard military spending bill?

    3. They held their seats in congress, and now their party controls 2 of the 3 branches of our government.

    4 How have your raw principals benefitted you?
    need to quote you to address it properly.

    1.disagree because you are so wrong

    2 buck stops with the POTUS, hell he did not even have to sign it for it to pass, it passes 10 days after it reaches his desk, oretard wanted it to pass.

    3. put the fuckers in jail, ALL of them,makes no difference if they are democrat or republican.

    4 I get to bitch moan & groan on the internet to BOTH sides because they are BOTH SHIT , oh man I fucking love that part, I get to have my principals and bitch? YEAH BABY ,
    I am MIDGET, HEAR ME ROAR

  16. #66
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Now that's gonna be an interesting fight to watch, provided the judge doesn't side with the DNC's call for dismissal.

    ...which might very well happen, since the major brunt of the argument are against actions that were discussed, but not acted upon, and the DNCs claim for neutrality is more a pledge to their voters than it is a legal obligation.

  17. #67
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    at this point what difference does it make? she lost and he is pretty much irrelevant so they should just let it go............

    oh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,wait.........


    Edit, I may appear to have "raw" principals, but the thing is my tolerance for bullshit in politics is far lesser than most. there are things I can overlook and things I simply will not compromise on.
    Last edited by jkcerda; 24th Apr 2017 at 17:10.

  18. #68
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Don't forget this is the French bread here.

    The trick about despising terrible candidates (or policies) is whether that implies you also despise the masses that voted for them. Compromise is more about recognition of one's fellow citizens than what one thinks is ideal in the nation of their dreams, sans all the inconvenient dissenters. It can also be more effective than the alternative, but that's not at the root I think.

    In my colleague's village near Strasbourg, she said probably 60% voted Fillon and the other 40% Le Pen, which she shrugged and said sounded accurate. Insane, but accurate. What does one do when vast stretches of their countryside see the world like that village? (FWIW, Trump is even worse than Fillon was with the casual corruption and nepotism angle.)

    Macron is interesting just because he apparently got support as an anti-elite, but he's as establishment as they come, and she couldn't figure out how he got so much support and Hollande only got like 4% when they're so close to each other.

    Well I'm just parroting her opinions. The most exposure I've had to French politics is that Sarkozy movie, The Conquest, although I guess the Republican's conquest is over for a while now.
    What do you see when you turn out the lights? / I can't tell you, but I know that it's mine. (J. Lennon)

  19. #69
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    put the fuckers in jail
    This is fast becoming your catchphrase.

  20. #70
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Trance View Post
    This is fast becoming your catchphrase.
    do you have a reason why they should NOT be behind bars?
    anyways.

  21. #71
    Dude we're talking about France here, the Trump/US thread is over there.

  22. #72
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    My apologies

  23. #73
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2005
    Location: swimming in pickled herring
    Quote Originally Posted by skacky View Post
    no way in hell I'm voting for either Macron or Le Pen, lesser evil or not.
    The problem is that you may end up with the Greater of Two Evils. I agree with you, skacky, and I threw my vote away this last election, because I thought there was no way that the Lesser of Two Evils would lose. Turns out I was wrong, and I will never waste my vote again. I just hope someday I will get to vote for someone I can actually believe in, but until that time, I will take the Lesser of Two Evils, 'cause lesser is better than greater.

  24. #74
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    But you still get evil.........

  25. #75
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2005
    Location: swimming in pickled herring
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    But you still get evil.........
    ...thanks Bruder, for your valuable input.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •