Le Pen Concedes Defeat To Macron In France's Post-Hack Election (reuters.com)

"France has voted for continuity," candidate Marine Le Pen said in the wake of her defeat in France's presidential election, conceding that Emmanuel Macron had a decisive lead. Reuters has ongoing coverage of Le Pen's concession phone call and reactions from world leaders. "France Rejects Far Right," read a headline at CNN, touting their own live updates and early results showing Macron with a 65.9% to 34.1% lead, "on course for a decisive win." Macron is schedule to speak at the Louvre museum (where the grounds were "briefly evacuated" this morning after discovery of a suspicious bag.) Quartz is calling 39-year-old Macron "the second Generation X president of a major world power" (after Canada's Justin Trudeau).

The election was closely watched after a 9-gigabyte trove of emails from Macron's campaign were leaked online. CNBC reports that "One of the most talked about emails makes reference to binge-watching Dr. Who and masturbating to the sound of running water. It sounds generally incoherent. It could be false, or maybe the person wrote it after a few too many." The New Yorker traces the leak to a right-leaning Canadian site, whose editor says he found the documents on 4chan. But Reuters is crediting WikiLeaks with providing "the largest boost of attention" to the leaked documents, according to an analysis pubished by the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council, a D.C.-based think tank on international affairs. WikiLeaks tweeted about the leak 15 times, bragging to Reuters that "we were hours ahead of all other major outlets." On Friday WikiLeaks also disputed the Macron campaign's claim that the leak mixed real documents with fake ones. "We have not yet discovered fakes in #MacronLeaks & we are very skeptical that the Macron campaign is faster than us."

Saturday WikiLeaks noted that several of the Office files "have Cyrillic meta data. Unclear if by design, incompetence, or Slavic employee." And Saturday afternoon they added "name of employee for Russian govt security contractor Evrika appears 9 times in metadata for 'xls_cendric.rar' leak archive."

Meanwhile, on the International Space Station, French astronaut Thomas Pesquet voted from space. Feel free to discuss the election's results in the comments.

Comments

Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

For rejecting fascism.

Re:Good on France

[DaHat]

Enjoy your weekly car fires and terrorist attacks.

He did kind of signal that that was the future they can look forward to.

This threat, this imponderable problem, is part of our daily lives for the years to come.

Re:Good on France

[Lisandro]

I guess you didn't visit Europe much?

Re:Good on France

[ArchieBunker]

Isn't lighting cars on fire the national past time of France?

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah people tended to share and back the party that wasn't run by indecent dickish nazi fascists. Unbelievable!

Re:Good on France

[Lisandro]

As much as drive-by shootings are the national past time in the US.

Wait, sorry. I said something really stupid.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

Only in Chicago and other cities with the strongest of gun laws.

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Because (Utøya) Christians (Fawkes) never (KKK) indulge (Sobibór) in (Charleston) religious (Army of God) inspired (Ilaga) violence (Bucharest).

Re:Good on France

[fred6666]

Europe has even stronger gun laws and almost no murders compared to the US.

Re:Good on France

[__aaclcg7560]

As much as mass shootings are the national past time in the US.

FTFY - Drive-by shootings are so 1980's.

Re:Good on France

[admin7087]

I'm pretty sure AC understands the difference. Front National is a fascist party, not 'democratic far-right' or if that category was even possible, or any other of these convenient euphemisms.

Perhaps one day something will change. But for now Europe is on the road to cultural destruction.

That's patently absurd and just by parroting and repeating these kinds of slogans they don't become any more convincing. Luckily the number of people like you is constantly declining, just look at how people vote across Europe and you'll see a constant trend towards the center left in generations The future belongs to those who care and whose descendants show up for it.

Future generations grow up with the Internet, they know that the world is just one large community, and they travel and live all across Europe. They know way better than you. Populist and far-right voters are older, in their forties and above, and generally misinformed. They will fade away. The world was never better than now, Europe is the best place on earth to live right now, and it's going to become even better in the future.

Re:Good on France

[ShanghaiBill]

Europe has even stronger gun laws and almost no murders compared to the US.

Europe actually has MORE murders than America.
I think you meant to say Western Europe, or the European Union.

Even in the EU, the murder rate is about 40% of America's, which is not "almost no murders".

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

And even better on them for rejecting freedom of the press. The press has destroyed the US, and France's ban on reporting on the email hack helped Macron because it kept people uninformed.

Re:Good on France

[Applehu Akbar]

People who think it's an example of medieval religious horror to show a pregnant woman a sonogram of her fetus need to be more activist at resisting female genital mutilation.

Re:Good on France

[ChromeAeonium]

Europe also has better access to healthcare (including mental healthcare), better social welfare, less class inequality, less gang activity, and generally ranks better on all the other things that lead to violent crime. I'm not sure how you can compare the two situations and blame the guns. Even between areas in the US, gun crime tends to happen more toward urban areas with lots of social problems, and not so much in the backwoods rural areas were everyone and their grandmother is carrying a gun.

Re:Good on France

[Lisandro]

Europe is the best place on earth to live right now, and it's going to become even better in the future.

Is your entire comment satire?

I concur with his statement, as long as we're talking about Western Europe.

I currently live in Europe and been considering moving to the US for work reasons. Just decided to extend my stay here for at least another year.

Re:Good on France

[Asteconn]

The IRA, UDA and other splinter groups from the Northern Irish troubles are excellent examples of Christian extremists.

Re:Good on France

[Sassinak]

And how is tucking tail, closing boarders, and turning allies into enemies going to make it any better.. all it means is you now fear outsiders AND your own citizens..

Terrorism thrives best with disinformation, mistrust, and fear and all Le Pen was pushing for was basically playing into those fears. You may be SURVIVE that way.. but survival and thriving/growing are completely different things.

Re:Good on France

[cheesybagel]

Sure thing Uncle Stalin.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Now explain Trump's victory.

Easy: Hillary was corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, war-mongering, and a party-hack. Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice than Hillary.

Macron doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb, but if the Democrats had put up anybody like him, they would likely have won in the US as well.

Re:Good on France

[Ryanrule]

satire?

Re:Good on France

[Sique]

Fun fact: This is utterly wrong. Or a lie. Or alternative facts.

The 26th most popular boy's name in Germany 2016 was Alexander. Mohammed doesn't even make the top 50.

Re:Good on France

[Lisandro]

I would, but it would be mildly insulting to the US population. What the fuck you guys were thinking is beyond me.

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

With what they had on the table as an alternative, it shouldn't really be surprising.

Now explain Trump's victory.

I think, first you have to explain to me how, in a nation of 200 million people, chance just happens to have arranged for the most qualified person to oppose Trump happens to be married to a former president. If you can explain that then please explain, why, outside a medieval dynasty, Mr Bush's son, Mr Bush actually becomes president. Finally, for an encore, explain how spending money is actually "speech" and so impossible for the government to regulate. Once we've finished those, then I will be able to restore my surprise that the US system fails to be fully democratic and we can start to look for explanations for Trump's victory somewhere beyond the simple "because the American systems fucked".

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

" Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice"
That's exactly who got elected. How's he doing so far?

Re:Good on France

[MightyMartian]

So being a Senator no longer qualifies as experience?

That could disqualify quite a few Presidents past.

Re:Good on France

[toonces33]

Instead we have a government that passed a bill to allow people with mental illness to purchase firearms.

Re:Good on France

[toonces33]

Nearly every word you use to describe Hillary can be easily applied to Trump.

Re:Good on France

[MightyMartian]

: Translation: Those rotten Frenchmen prevented the righteous Kremlinistas from undermining their election.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

A place where anyone can lead the nation. Sounds more like a good thing than a bad thing even if the "anyone" can be bad. In any case during the campaign Trump (and all his faults) were compared to Clinton (and all her faults) and in a majority of states voters thought the later was worse. What is the the problem ?

I guess funny in that the primaries selected two terrible candidates but at the same time one of the primaries did select an outsider that was hated by that party elite. So, there's that.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

Hindsight 20/20 aside, we'll find out when his term is over.

Re:Good on France

[Plus1Entropy]

Hindsight 2020 is what CNN will call their coverage of the next Presidential election.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

explain how spending money is actually "speech" and so impossible for the government to regulate.

If you spend money to air a commercial should you be able to say anything political you want? (let's ignore the FCC and the stupid obscenity rules for now for simplicity) Can you spend your own money to support a candidate or call out another candidate/bill/politician/agency whatever you want? That is functionally the point. Because money allows speech to be aired or allows speech to be said then it must be that the government not limit what political speech is aired even if it costs money. It would be no different than printing out a political paper (very cheap) than buying air space for a commercial (very expensive).

Obviously it causes issues with collaborating with a political campaign because there are other laws that deal with those kind of things. But you as an individual decide to put out a commercial that says "Trump is an orange bozo. Vote against anything he does.". Should the government limit that? If you are not collaborating with any other political campaign and acting purely on your own and spending your own money on a political position you feel strongly about can the government restrict you?

If they can't, and you decide to set up a type of company to take advantage of tax law then you have effectively set up the situation we are in with super PACs. That is effectively the argument and the citizens united decision basically said that the government can't stop you individually from spending your money to air political positions.

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Populist and far-right voters are older, in their forties and above, and generally misinformed.

Actually, le Menchion and le Pen were the leading candidates among young voters in the first round. Those who have never known prosperity are not buying the bullshit anymore.

Re:Good on France

[Kernel Kurtz]

Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice than Hillary.

Time will tell if that is actually the case or not.

Re:Good on France

[quonset]

Easy: Hillary was corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, war-mongering, and a party-hack. Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice than Hillary.

As opposed to Trump who is corrupt (hiring illegal workers and not paying them as well as colluding with a foreign government during the election), has repeatedly shown his incompetence (I thought it would be easier), has lied since day one (Hillary's not in jail, Obamneycare wasn't repealed on day one, Mexico isn't paying for the wall, the swamp is filled almost to capacity and he's gone golfing more times in three months than Obama went in an entire year), has gotten several service members killed already because of his penchant to use the military without thought, and a hack of the highest order as shown by the chaos of his administration where one hand literally does not know what the other is doing.

So yeah, big difference between the two.

Re:Good on France

[rsilvergun]

Enjoy your weekly car fires and terrorist attacks.

Oh come on, you're exaggerating. World cups only every 4 years.

Re:Good on France

[hey!]

The way shooting yourself with your own gun is an American pasttime.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

That's exactly who got elected. How's he doing so far?

Trump voters seem to still consider him the better choice. Personally, I have nothing to complain about.

Re:Good on France

[hey!]

It always bothers me how easy it is to oversimplify something like this.

Nearly everyone would like to see some things change, and it's a certainty some of the people who voted for Macron would like to see a lot of things changed.

LePen characterizing this as a vote for "continuity" is a self-serving lie. "Continuity" and "Change" were not on the ballot. The only thing you can conclude is that French voters rejected the particular changes LePen represents.

Re: Good on France

[admin7087]

Name me the country or region where you prefer to live so we can compare and have good laugh.

Re:Good on France

[ClickOnThis]

You are a partially literate idiot.
Homicide rate vs total homicides.

Europe has more homicides [than the USA].

Nope. Whether you count homicide rate or total homicides, USA wins.

Re:Good on France

[c]

Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice than Hillary.

Too bad Bozo wasn't on the ballot; the USA might've had a shot at sane and competent leadership.

Re:Good on France

[ClickOnThis]

The issue is not whether you can regulate what someone says with their own money, it's how much money they can spend doing it during an election. The Citizens United decision unshackled the wealthy from any financial restrictions on influencing elections with their capital.

If you're a multimillionaire, and I'm an average American with modest capital, then unrestricted spending on political speech makes your megaphone is many thousands of times louder than mine. Do you think that's good for democracy?

Re:Good on France

[ceoyoyo]

Violent conflict almost is almost always attributable to economic reasons. More so the bigger it is. That doesn't mean religion isn't frequently used as a means to rally people to your cause. The IRA riling up catholic Irish against protestant English for example.

But if you want an example of some purely christian terrorists, the nutjobs who shoot up abortion clinics are a pretty good one.

Re:Good on France

[Solandri]

Europe also tends to be more ethnically homogeneous (per country). The U.S., for all its flaws, is a hodgepodge of people from all over the world. I've always suspected part of the high violence rate in the U.S. is due to latent racism and cultural biases present everywhere, but coming into conflict with each other much more in the U.S. than in other countries.

The counterargument would be Canada, which is more diverse than the U.S., yet has less violence. But if you stare at that map and a homicide rate map long enough, I think you'll convince yourself that Canada is an outlier, and that in general higher ethnic diversity in a country is correlated with higher violence rates.

We still have a long ways to go as a species.

Re:Good on France

[ShanghaiBill]

Nope. Whether you count homicide rate or total homicides, USA wins.

Not when you consider all of Europe. Russia has a murder rate about twice that of America. Ukraine also a higher murder rate. When you look at the entire continent, Europe "wins".

Re: Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Singular events that are utterly irrelevant to a nation as a whole if all too many people tried to profit from it or are easily scared.
Did you know that every year 130 000 (or 73 000 if you prefer wikipedia over my local newspaper) people die from measles?
Something that would be VASTLY easier to be done with once and forever (smallpox is the prove it can be done, and at reasonable effort) than terrorism and would save a lot, lot, LOT, LOT more lives.
This bwaah! "islamists", "terrorists" scare and resources spent on it is an insult to all those many, many people who die from the actual threats we have in our world and simply ignore. Everyone who continues to feed it should be most deeply ashamed.

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly our leaders were thinking of their own self-interest on that one.

Re:Good on France

[Hognoxious]

Perhaps he's comparing them on the basis of weight?

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Le Pen has nothing to do with fascism with was a socialist-inspired movement helped by the finance world, to oppose against communism in the twenties and thirties. There is no USSR anymore, and Front National is certainly not helped with the industrial, finance and business world (Very far from that).

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Too bad Bozo wasn't on the ballot; the USA might've had a shot at sane and competent leadership.

Well, not every nation can be blessed with such "sane and competent", not to mention pretty, leadership as you:

“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.

“Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.

“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.

I'll give Trudeau this much: he is probably too stupid and ignorant to understand what his speech writer wrote for him.

People who sit in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Re:Good on France

[Hognoxious]

the national past time in the US. [...] I said something really stupid.

Yup. It's pastime. One word.

Does past time even remotely hint at what you meant? If it means anything at all, it means history.

Re:Good on France

[ArchieBunker]

That leaves the blacks as the cause.

Re:Good on France

[Lisandro]

I know. Check the GP.

Re:Good on France

[Hognoxious]

Wild guess, but I reckon that at least half of the time the White House was occupied by somebody who hadn't been President before.

Re:Good on France

[Hognoxious]

And the Serbs.

Has anyone else noticed that they all have square heads? What's that all about?

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe also tends to be more ethnically homogeneous (per country). The U.S., for all its flaws, is a hodgepodge of people from all over the world. I've always suspected part of the high violence rate in the U.S. is due to latent racism and cultural biases present everywhere, but coming into conflict with each other much more in the U.S. than in other countries.

The problem with that argument is simple: You haven't shown that inter-cultural exchanges are compromising a number of homicides.

So basically, not only are you still slipping on causation, you haven't established correlation.

The counterargument would be Canada, which is more diverse than the U.S., yet has less violence. But if you stare at that map and a homicide rate map long enough, I think you'll convince yourself that Canada is an outlier, and that in general higher ethnic diversity in a country is correlated with higher violence rates.

Stare too long into the abyss, and you'll find it staring back, doesn't make it true or valid.

The least you could do is check your own assumptions, but you didn't.

We still have a long ways to go as a species.

One would hope so, we haven't even gotten close to becoming a worm. Which was we all know, is the pinnacle of evolution.

Re: Good on France

[fortfive]

Username checks out.

Re:Good on France

[serviscope_minor]

Maybe the car arsonists were on strike

Re:Good on France

[serviscope_minor]

Even if what you say is true, it still doesn't make sense because Trump is still worse in every aspect you listed, so clearly those factors weren't the deciding ones.

Re: Good on France

[bestweasel]

What's wrong with that? When you compare Cuba with much of central and south America over the same period - all those US supported military juntas disappearing people by the thousand, plundering their country to enrich themselves - Cuba is a beacon of light, even encumbered as it was by its enforced dependence on the USSR.

Re:Good on France

[Mal-2]

That's what happens when you are told (and believe) your only options are a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

What is needed is to break the mass delusion, all at once. Third parties should be assembling Congressional bids now. Get a couple Representatives willing to call out the two majors on their bullshit. Get noticed. Then maybe those parties will actually be considered players in 2020, if the media doesn't continue to conspire to ignore them.

Re:Good on France

[h33t l4x0r]

To be fair, nobody knew how corrupt or incompetent Trump's presidency would be before he took office. That came as a surprise (who knew?) - I see Trump voters as victims of false advertising.

Re:Good on France

[Tough Love]

Hillary would have been worse.

Nice crock of shit, anonymous shitposter.

Re:Good on France

[Tough Love]

Now explain Trump's victory.

Easy: Hillary was corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, war-mongering, and a party-hack.

Wait a moment. That description fits Donald Trump far better than it fits Hillary Clinton. Clinton is flawed, yes, but Donald Trump is evil.

Re:Good on France

[Tough Love]

And Donald Trump is a party hack for the neo-fascist Putin party.

Re:Good on France

[Tough Love]

" Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice"

That's exactly who got elected. How's he doing so far?

Right, Ronald Mcdonald Trump

Re:Good on France

[Tough Love]

And a self-admitted sexual abuser.

Re:Good on France

[Tough Love]

They rejected nationalism, not fascism.

They rejected whoever sounded even a little bit like Donald Trump because they saw what America did to itself.

Re:Good on France

[fred6666]

40% with strict gun laws. And yet you complain that there are more murders in Chicago because of gun laws?

Re: Good on France

[bestweasel]

Six hours in and the a/c you replied to is +4 Insightful, the first a/c reply to you is +3 Interesting but no points for you.

I would mod you up but it looks like Slashdot mainly gives mod points to fascists.

Re:Good on France

[dryeo]

Actually all genital mutilation of children. I also don't think people should be forced to see anything they aren't interested in seeing.

Re: Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that's a question, the answer is "No. Gary doesn't even crack the top 20."

St. Louis, Baltimore, and Detroit are the top 3.

Re:Good on France

[Serge_Tomiko]

Honestly, Trump has accomplished *nothing*. He really is the most status quo of any president in a century at this stage. Trump voters and haters are both deluded here.

Re:Good on France

[Tablizer]

Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice [than Hillary]

That's exactly who got elected. How's he doing so far?

Pretty much what you'd expect of Bozo: making enemies out of allies, friends out of enemies, bumbling around honking on Twitter, wearing frumpy golf pants, taking credit for imaginary victories, and blaming others for real setbacks.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

Bitch, please.
Hillary won her Senate seat in New York state by going out to meet the little people, showing up at country fairs on weekends and introducing herself and explaining what she hoped to accomplish.
The GOP whine continually about how Dems & liberals pander to the elite and ignore the "Real Americans" but when a Dem does it & wins, it's evil

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

"Thanks to Trump, we now have a less-expensive form of universal healthcare that"

No, you don't. It's not yet passed the Senate and even if it becomes law, its greatest achievement will be to throw millions under the bus - and then back up over them a few times.
The man's as ignorant a stack of bricks and is the poster child for hypocrisy. Go to trumptwitterarchive.com to see what he had to say about the electoral college, Syria, etc and what he's saying now

Re: Good on France

[haruchai]

You should try actually paying attention rather than assuming everything you think. It makes you look ignorant.

Please call the White House and tell that to the President. He, more than anyone, really needs to heed that advice.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

"Honeybuns, the election is over"
Does Ivanka know you're stealing her best line?
Trumplethinskin mentions at every opportunity how amazing it was that he won such a rough-and-tough difficult election by his definition of a landslide.
The arrogant asshole stood in front of the CIA wall of stars honoring their dead and rambled on about who voted for him & how much the media hates him.

"All that got you was that independents like myself got thoroughly pissed off and stayed home"
Don't you live in California? You were planning to vote for Clinton? Before you answer yes to that 2nd question, refer to the following quote:
"You can stop the pretense and the lying"

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

Hindsight 20/20 aside, we'll find out when his term is over.

His transition team still has not filled or nominated replacements for a several hundred important positions, the Obama people held over are either quitting or being fired when they refuse to do what is being demanded of them and Jared is already way over his head.

Re:Good on France

[chihowa]

If we're going to look backward in time, are we allowed to look at Europe's (not at all) peaceful past, including starting two of the largest wars in human history? Non-homicidal Europeans are a relatively new phenomenon and time will only tell how long it lasts.

Re:Good on France

[h33t l4x0r]

Wow, you *really* haven't been watching the news.

Re:Good on France

[serviscope_minor]

yeah but in America you're much more likely to get injured when a police chase is happening. I know this from watching the guy with the luminous teeth presenting the world's (America's) wildest police videos. I'm pretty sure it's legit to base my assumptions of what America is like based off that show.

Re:Good on France

[OrangeTide]

Christians are next on my list, after we kick out the Muslims.

Yes. Why don't we kill them all for the great peace.. Chuck in the Buddhists while we're at it. They haven't been being that peaceful recently either.

Well I never suggested we kill anyone, and I hope you can understand why your hyperbolic statements are wrong. But many Buddhist organizations should be charged with child abuse and dismantled.

Re:Good on France

[OrangeTide]

Well I am against imprisoning and murdering dissents, so I think Stalin and I have some significant differences in philosophy.

Re:Good on France

[Z80a]

I doubt they listened to people like you to come up with this decision.
Also Macron should actually handle the problems that half of the population are afraid of, or well, france does have a history of bringing guillotines to the discussion.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

That is hindsight 20/20. no one knew what would happen.

Also, from what I understand it is as much as congress as it is the executive as to why he doesn't have a full cabinet.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

What rights you have shouldn't be limited based on the money you have. You are saying that someone poor that prints a political flyer has more freedom in than a person able to buy commercial space. It is not right to limit an individuals rights based on the money they have.

Also, keep in mind that the more moneyed campaign lost in 2016. Just because you have lots of money does not mean you will win. It helps you, no doubt, but it isn't a guaranteed purchase.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

So, the problem with Europe is that the middle east and Africa are right next door where you can get weapons very easily. Borders are only for the law abiding. A criminal does not care about the borders nor laws if it is against their interests.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

That is hindsight 20/20. no one knew what would happen.

"Nobody knew it would all be so complicated!" - Donald Trump.
Everyone with a clue knew.

Also, from what I understand it is as much as congress as it is the executive as to why he doesn't have a full cabinet.

Yes, many have to be approved but they have to be nominated first, which hasn't been done for the very vast majority.
And there are hundreds, possibly over a thousand positions that don't need Senate confirmation.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

He's a disaster. But he's still better than Crooked Hillary.

No, he's not.
She would have made a smooth transition, not the 100 days of clusterfuckery that's shows no sign of letting up any time soon

Re:Good on France

[serbanp]

Bullshit. Stop using words you don't understand. Or you're a frigging troll, it's not obvious.

Re:Good on France

[Tough Love]

Grab your blanky and go cry yourself to sleep in your little Lefty bed.

Hello Vlad.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

"All that got you was that independents like myself got thoroughly pissed off and stayed home" Don't you live in California? You were planning to vote for Clinton? Before you answer yes to that 2nd question, refer to the following quote:

No, I was never going to vote for Clinton: she proved that she was an evil b*tch when she ran against Obama (who I voted for), and proved her incompetence in the subsequent eight years. I would have considered voting for a moderate, competent Democrat, but since I didn't particularly like Trump, I just stayed home.

In the aftermath of the election, two things happened. First, the sky didn't fall with Trump and the Republicans have pretty much accepted the status quo on social issues I care about. Second, instead of figuring out what they did wrong and moving back to the center, the Democratic party and its supporters have become even nuttier and nastier, meaning come next election, I may well vote Republican.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Even if what you say is true, it still doesn't make sense because Trump is still worse in every aspect you listed, so clearly those factors weren't the deciding ones.

Well, I'm sure you believe that. Large numbers of Americans disagree (myself included).

Re: Good on France

[ooloorie]

Are you kidding? Castro was an evil, murderous dictator who condemned Cubans to a life of poverty and misery. And Castro allied with the USSR and other totalitarian and terrorist regimes by choice.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Correction: I would have considered voting for a moderate, competent Democrat, but [there was none, and] since I didn't particularly like Trump [either], I just stayed home.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

So tell me, why isn't Hillary in jail right now

Trump really has more important things to worry about than Hillary; Hillary is humiliated and politically irrelevant at this point, and with the collapse of the Clinton Foundation, her advanced age, and her apparently debilitated state, she isn't going to make a comeback.

Why is it that the day after Trump gets elected, we no longer hear about Benghazi?

Benghazi was one of many instances where Hillary screwed up and lied, and voters took that into account when going to the polls. What more do you want to "hear" about it?

Your post is only "insightful" as it shows how totally fucking clueless conservatives are to believe propaganda from their worthless as shit politicians.

I came to despise Hillary not in 2016, but in 2008, when she ran her dirty campaign against Obama (who I voted for). I'm not a conservative. In fact, I used to be a registered Democrat until I figured out how (to use your words) "totally fucking clueless I had been and to believe the propaganda from the worthless as shit politicians" in the Democratic party. Since then, I've registered independent.

Re:Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Username checks out!

Re:Good on France

[breeze95]

" the aftermath of the election, two things happened. First, the sky didn't fall with Trump and the Republicans have pretty much accepted the status quo on social issues I care about. .

Can you tell us which social issues that the Republicans have accepted the status quo?

Re:Good on France

[Tranzistors]

Not when you consider all of Europe. Russia has a murder rate about twice that of America.[...] When you look at the entire continent, Europe "wins".

If you want to compare Europe vs. America, please include Central America and South America. That you make your comparison more valid.

Re:Good on France

[Tranzistors]

That is hindsight 20/20. no one knew what would happen.

While technically true, the outcome was not surprising for those who have seen populism before. It's not that he promised great things, it's that his just said “things will be great” without any substantiation.

Also, from what I understand it is as much as congress as it is the executive as to why he doesn't have a full cabinet.

Nomination is squarely in the hands of the president and his team. I am not aware of any blocking action from the congress.

Re:Good on France

[Barsteward]

aaah... we see bigotry is alive and well in your head

Re:Good on France

[Barsteward]

because the gun carriers still think they are cowboys of a bygone era. virtually all the US cop dramas are rehashed cowboy scenarios where guns are always drawn

Re:Good on France

[dunkelfalke]

I think you are the illiterate idiot here.

That liar stated that, and I quote:

Even in the EU, the murder rate is about 40% of
America's, which is not "almost no murders".

Emphasis mine.

Re: Good on France

[dave420]

They have no border checks with Germany you cretin. You don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about.

Re:Good on France

[Jzanu]

Absolutely! This is truly great news for the world, as this not only secures the trading value of the EU block, it sabotages Putin's plan to remove both nuclear powers from the EU. This outcome vastly improves the EU security situation and removes substantial parts of the risk of invasion by Russia that the Baltic states and Poland faced otherwise.

Why? It is Putin's aim and has been for a decade is to destabilize and isolate all nuclear powers. He succeeded in the US with Trump's isolationist vision, although the totality of congress is keeping him in line so far. He succeeded inthe UK with May's isolationist vision, although demographics show UK return to the EU within a decade. If the ongoing Russian subterfuge had gotten Pen elected then France withdrawing from the international sphere would have left the EU isolated and reliant on the military power of Germany, who lacks their own nuclear weapons as yet.

I am vastly in favor of full rearmament in Germany and Japan, including nuclear weapons. Regional powers for both are abusing the terms that limit their arsenal as means to exert unearned dominance and control. Whether the current nuclear powers all deserve that influence is also up for debate, but the only solution there is mild proliferation.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

And yet gun violence is massively lower in most of Europe. It's a lot harder to get guns into Europe from those areas then it is to bring guns over state lines in the US thus gun violence rates are far lower. It then follows both logically and in a literal statistical fashion that homicides are lower because it's a good bit harder to kill someone with a knife then a gun (which essentially a point and click device).

Re:Good on France

[dunkelfalke]

Not really. The only US states where the murder rate is comparable to the murder rate of the EU are the states where barely anyone lives, which is kind of duh, because crime rate is generally proportional to population density. But even then these states have a much lower population density than most of the EU countries so it still sucks in comparison.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

Cheers to you sir, you win the grasp on reality award for the evening! Regional gun laws are indeed crap but not because gun laws are crap. It's because guns just come in from elsewhere.

Re:Good on France

[dunkelfalke]

Exactly. Besides, moslems have no imagination when it comes to boy names - it is like half of them have that name, that kind of skews the statistics.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

A place where "anyone" can lead is a good thing? Please, there's plenty of idiots in this country and a rabid nationalist who has no experience is not a strong candidate.

"In any case during the campaign Trump (and all his faults) were compared to Clinton (and all her faults) and in a majority of states voters thought the later was worse. What is the the problem ?"

Well the problem is that the majority of Americans (you know, the country the president governs) didn't choose Trump, they chose Hilary. The electoral college is a travesty that lets 10 or so states decide our presidential elections. And no, before you mention it, it is not empowering the small states at all as half of the top ten most populous states are swing states.

Oh and being hated by your party's elite doesnt automatically mean good (although I too share some frustrations with our two main parties). It could mean he's not fit to govern ("gosh, I didn't know being president would be so hard! Maybe I should spend 8 years of presidential vacation years in one, playing golf at my resorts)

Re: Good on France

[Anonymous Coward]

Utter bullshit. I live in Switzerland and often travel all over the continent. There're no "tight immigration controls and border checks" - you can take a train and cross the German/French/Italian without anyone even asking for your passport. In fact, people here often travel back and forth to Germany just for shopping.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

Really? The Republicans have been getting nuttier and nastier for years. Mainstream Republicans used to believe government could and should do at least some things. With what gerrymandering has brought us most Republicans tack far right to avoid challenges from the most active elements of their own party because they don't have to worry about Democratic challengers.

Re:Good on France

[Lisandro]

Laugh it up, but i've been thinking about this and both Trump and Brexit likely played a significant factor in this election, and will affect several more to come in the near future.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

Hillary was most certainly a moderate democrat. If that's not obvious you don't know what moderate democrat means. I have no interest in debating competent with you as it would require too much of my time.

Re: Good on France

[skam240]

But yet everything you quote there is correct. Castro did indeed create an amazing medical system for a third world nation and their education system isnt so bad. He was also a very skilled orator. I have zero love of communism and little love for Castro (I do admire his medical system) but Trudeau did not utter a single falsehood there.

Maybe you should examine your own intellect if you're questing Trudeau on that point.

Re:Good on France

[dunkelfalke]

Just FYI, the Russian short form for Vladimir would be Vova or Volodya. The latter because due to a vocal shift in Slavic languages over a thousand years ago the correct Russian form of that name used to be "Volodimer", but Russian has a lot of loan words from Old Church Slavonic (which is essentially a dialect of Old Bulgarian) where the aforementioned vocal shift went a different way.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

You're like the FOX commentator screaming "why isnt the black community condemning this crime?" or "why isn't the Muslim community condemning this crime?" when no one asks that of white people when a white christian commits a terrible crime.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

And many atheists do bad things too. You're lack of commitment to freedom of thought it terribly disappointing.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

Shit, "your"

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

Yeah but to him, 18-34 only counts if you're reposting pepe the frog memes.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

Also, what in the hell does this have to do with Russia? This was an election in France. At least read the title.

lol. The Russians hacked Macron, thinking the shame shit they pulled with the yanks would work twice. Turns out the French are smarter. Who would've thunk it.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

You should read over stuff before you hit submit.

Re: Good on France

[Lisandro]

Not with the police - with the canton of your residence. The Swiss like to keep track of their residents for a number of reasons but policing has little to do with it.

You should really visit Switzerland some day. It will clear a lot of misconceptions you seem to have.

Re:Good on France

[sidetrack]

WTF? You're basing your views on a junky TV show? Just look at the stats. Really, go and look at them. Please.

UK murder rate is less than 1 per 100,000 per year. US is more than 4 times higher at just under 4 per 100,000 per year for 2013.

For that matter, why TF are you worried about murders, you're more than twice as likely to be killed on the roads in the US as you are murdered. But you're more likely to be murdered in the US than you are run over in the UK.

But if you still prefer anecdote to facts, then I've lived in both countries, and I know which one I feel safest in.

[sources wikipedia, and ourworldindata.org]

Re: Good on France

[Lisandro]

Dude, you're really stretching out semantics. How exactly is police supposed to show up if you fail to register? People move in Switzerland (i did) and police will certainly not knock your door down if you fail to re-register. Again, registration is more related to taxation and local regulations than citizen policing.

Also, i don't know how you came up with the "tight immigration controls" and "border checks". Immigrating to Switzerland is relatively easy if you can prove income and border checks are particularly relaxed. The only time i was checked at a border was when shopping in Konstanz, Germany, and they were more interested on my receipts than my passport and residency card.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

If we weren't drowning in fucking idiots, he'd never have got past the primaries. But we are, and he did.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

Easy: Hillary was corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, war-mongering, and a party-hack. Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice than Hillary.

As opposed to Trump who is corrupt (hiring illegal workers and not paying them as well as colluding with a foreign government during the election), has repeatedly shown his incompetence (I thought it would be easier), has lied since day one (Hillary's not in jail, Obamneycare wasn't repealed on day one, Mexico isn't paying for the wall, the swamp is filled almost to capacity and he's gone golfing more times in three months than Obama went in an entire year), has gotten several service members killed already because of his penchant to use the military without thought, and a hack of the highest order as shown by the chaos of his administration where one hand literally does not know what the other is doing.

So yeah, big difference between the two.

You forgot about ISIS. I assume Trump did too because they still exist, and I believe he promised they'd already be gone by now.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

That's fascinating. Assuming it would annoy him, I'll refer to him as Vlad, or "Dear Leader".

Re:Good on France

[Hognoxious]

If you repeat another's error you should mark it with [sic], though some fucktards seem to think it means "I don't agree with this".

Re:Good on France

[jpaine619]

Less class inequality? Are you fucking high? You assholes still have monarchs. You can't get any more unequal than that. At least over here, literally any citizen has a shot at the top spot.

Re:Good on France

[jpaine619]

When are you cunts gonna get it through your heads that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with hunting, self defense, or recreation? Those are just side benefits.

The largest murderers in history (by volume) are GOVERNMENTS. More people have been killed by governments turning on them, than any psychotic serial killer or thugged out gang member could ever hope to even imagine.

Government murders run into the TENS OF MILLIONS.

Our founders codified these gun rights to protect us FROM THE GOVERNMENT. If you think the good old US of A is somehow unique and could never turn on its own population, I'd like to direct your attention to Japanese Americans during WWII.

I concede they weren't killed in the camps, but they were locked up without charge or trial. They were citizens and their own government turned on them. Locked up for an hour or a year.. It doesn't matter. It's WRONG.

The precedent has been set. The government CAN and WILL turn on the population again at some point in the future.. I don't know what will precipitate it, but it will happen.

Re:Good on France

[dunkelfalke]

Calling him Vova would probably be more annoying (it is an overly familiar form). Even more annoying would be Vovochka - the same but with an added diminutive, also the name of the #1 russian joke character archetype (think little Johnny, but maybe even more vulgar).

Hence the quip that goes like "starting 1999 all jokes about Vovochka are considered political".

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

Too bad Bozo wasn't on the ballot; the USA might've had a shot at sane and competent leadership.

On the ballot? He fucking won.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

If you can explain that then please explain, why, outside a medieval dynasty, Mr Bush's son, Mr Bush actually becomes president.

At the time Bush was 'elected' (it was a stolen election BTW) it genuinely stunned me that nobody was interested in commenting on the fact that the new president was the son of the president from two terms before.

Anyone can be president in the USA, can they? Fucking LOL.

You have an oligarchy, and your ruling class are well entrenched. The fact that so many americans think that Trump is somehow outside of this establishment is fucking hilarious. Or at least it would be if you didn't have quite so many nukes.

Anyway. Enjoy the shitstorm this clown creates. He's barely getting started.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

Just because you have lots of money does not mean you will win. It helps you, no doubt, but it isn't a guaranteed purchase.

Having money doesn't mean guaranteed win, sure. Not having money does mean guaranteed loss, though.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

It's pretty weird though, that Trump is apparently not liked by many in the republican party whilst still being a complete and total cunt. Mystery for the ages.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

In secular countries you are generally legally allowed to mock religion. Christians largely appear to just put up with it, or whinge about it. Muslims appear to take things rather more seriously. Not all, but it seems like a lot more.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

And many atheists do bad things too.

"No, you". Argument over. You're a fucking genius.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

The IRA, UDA and other splinter groups from the Northern Irish troubles are excellent examples of Christian extremists.

The fact that you think that merely illustrates that you know precisely fuck all about the Troubles.

Religion came along for the ride because it wants to be relevant. DeValera put the catholic church in charge of the new Irish republic and it raped the fuck out of everything in sight.

The Troubles are a cultural and political conflict. No-one gives a fuck about the differences between protestant and catholic.

So in actual fact, they are a shit example of Christian extremists.

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

"moslems" lol.

Re:Good on France

[Tough Love]

Even more annoying would be Vovochka - the same but with an added diminutive...

So, then, roughly analogous to the size of his penis.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

"First, the sky didn't fall with Trump"
Tell that to the people caught in his fuckup of an immigration ban; who knows just what a disaster that would have produced if the courts hadn't shut it down.
As if traveling by air isn't stressful enough.

"No, I was never going to vote for Clinton: she proved that she was an evil b*tch when she ran against Obama (who I voted for)"
"the Democratic party and its supporters have become even nuttier and nastier"
Wait a minute - you voted for Obama in 2008 and you think that it's the DEMS who've become "nuttier & nastier"?
I can believe what I'm reading.

Re:Good on France

[serviscope_minor]

Well, I'm sure you believe that. Large numbers of Americans disagree (myself included).

Well, some people still disagree that the Earth isn't flat. That doesn't make it so.

What it shows is that your dislike for Hillary isn't based on any of those things. It's deeper and almost certainly irrational which is why you have to rationalize it by claiming there's evidence for your belief. Interesting.

Re:Good on France

[halivar]

It's almost like other countries transliterate the Arabic word differently than you do. Curious. (FYI, even in English the spelling was "moslem" until quite recently, though many also just said "Mohammadian".)

Re:Good on France

[Lisandro]

Um, are you sure you understand what "racist" means?

Re:Good on France

[Barsteward]

those places don't have the "wild west" history or an out of date definition of a constitution to claim as a precedence for carrying penis extensions

Re:Good on France

[jbengt]

If you spend money to air a commercial should you be able to say anything political you want?

Should Congress be unable to regulate your corporation's spending on political advertising, even while you are enjoying the privilege of limited liability that Congress gives in order to encourage investment in productive businesses? Should congress not be able to end your limited liability when they see a problem with corporations gaining too much power over The People by spending on behalf of politicians friendly to their business?

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

What is the difference between a corporation and an individual? Should speech be limited because of the tax code that applies to you?

 

corporations gaining too much power over The People by spending on behalf of politicians friendly to their business?

The more moneyed and corporate candidate lost in 2016 for US elections. Money != guaranteed political power. Citizens can still vote no matter what corporations do and can hold the government accountable and can force the government to change positions. Corporations cannot do that.

  What happens if half the electorate disagree with you and want more corporate 'freedoms', is that corporations gaining too much power over "The People"? Even if those 'freedom' were granted by the people through elections and votes? Who is "The People" if half the electorate disagree?

Re:Good on France

[c]

Well, not every nation can be blessed with such "sane and competent", not to mention pretty, leadership as you:

Well, duh. Trudeau is a politician. Nice guys do not claw their way to the level of running entire countries. You'll never catch me saying that we don't have any problems with our leadership. It's not all lollipops and unicorns up here.

As for Castro... I fully agree with you, he was exactly the sort of dictator the United States is happy to make friends with. He just wasn't on your side.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

Has anyone tried?

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

So, we should just only have elites run the nation? I wonder how the "elite" define elite... -.- Yes, democracy means that even stupid people can run the nation that isn't' the point. A government for the people, by the people, and of the people means that if people are stupid the government will be too. Are you an authoritarian?

Well the problem is that the majority of Americans (you know, the country the president governs) didn't choose Trump, they chose Hilary. The electoral college is a travesty that lets 10 or so states decide our presidential elections. And no, before you mention it, it is not empowering the small states at all as half of the top ten most populous states are swing states.

There are problems with democracy. The same reasons that the Senate exist is the same reason for the Electoral College in a different branch of government. Do you think the Senate is a good idea for a bicameral Congress?

Swing states change over time as that States politics change based on the peoples needs and wants. Large states cannot ignore the small states because they have more people. The whole point was to keep the union together by ensuring that the Executive had the needs and wants in mind for a majority of states. We are a union of states not a mob. There is no single national election. Clinton lost the majority of elections. She won large margins in the few elections she did win. That is not enough because it has always been about the electoral college. Blame her for running a terrible campaign.

Oh and being hated by your party's elite doesnt automatically mean good (although I too share some frustrations with our two main parties). It could mean he's not fit to govern ("gosh, I didn't know being president would be so hard! Maybe I should spend 8 years of presidential vacation years in one, playing golf at my resorts)

It doesn't automatically mean good it just means he was an outsider and that anyone can become POTUS regardless of what established institutions want. That is a good thing. That is how you avoid civil war by ensuring the government accommodates the changing body politic of the nation.

Seriously, it sounds like you don't want a democracy yet rail on about popular vote and the people. What do you want?

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Tell that to the people caught in his fuckup of an immigration ban

Oh, poor babies! They might have gotten stuck outside the country for a few months waiting for a visa!

You know, like I and many other legal immigrants have been in the past. Where was your outrage for the past half century before Trump?

Wait a minute - you voted for Obama in 2008 and you think that it's the DEMS who've become "nuttier & nastier"? I can believe what I'm reading.

Stop your stupid binary thinking. I didn't become a Republican, I have become an Independent.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

For me, an unknown had a chance of being better than a known bad. What is democracy without populism?

I am not aware of any blocking action from the congress.

I know it's back and forth and both share some blame. Just as the executive haven't put up much names for nomination the few that have been put forward took a very long time to get confirmed compared to prior administrations/congress.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

And "gun control" will never be harmonized across the US without a super majority to change the constitution. So, either accept that fact of reality or keep assuming you can change reality with a pen and paper.

Like it or not, guns are a protected right in the US. If order of the rights mean anything then it is the 2nd most important right we have. We can say what we want and defend ourselves for saying it. Considering how the government was complicit with antifa violence, these days, I am less concerned about a tyrannical government than a lynch mob and a complicit government.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Really? The Republicans have been getting nuttier and nastier for years.

So? I didn't join the Republicans, I left the Democrats and became an independent.

Mainstream Republicans used to believe government could and should do at least some things.

And they still do: for example, police, education, roads at the local level, highways, criminal justice, family law, health care, welfare, and environment at the state level, and defense and trade policy at the national level.

What has changed is that Democrats have been increasingly pushing things to the federal level and then accused Republicans of being anarchists when they oppose this and want more local control.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

Everyone with a clue knew.

As I have said in other posts. For me, an unknown has a chance of being good compared to a known bad. 10/10 would do again, still have 3-7 years to give judgement. Just like I did with Obama when he was elected. Why would I pass judgement before his term is up? I gave Obama a chance even though I disagreed with lots of his policies. I was willing to give Sanders a chance even though I disagree with his policies. Why would I not give Trump a chance even though I disagree with his policies? There is still lots of time for him to succeed/fuck up.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Hillary was most certainly a moderate democrat.

Hillary has claimed to be both "moderate" and "progressive"; as Sanders put it "You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive."

In fact, she was neither: she flip-flopped between being a progressive and a moderate in her speeches and then adopted policies that served her donors and her political interests. Her history is really that of a left-wing radical (Alinsky and all that).

So, old, tired Hillary was really neither moderate nor progressive nor radical, she was simply an opportunist and a sell-out to the highest bidder.

Re: Good on France

[ooloorie]

Castro did indeed create an amazing medical system for a third world nation and their education system isnt so bad.

That's utterly disgusting.

He was also a very skilled orator.

You can't usually stay in power as a mass murdering dictator without that skill.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

I still wonder what causes people like you to obsess so much about US politics: it's not your country, and you obviously don't know much about it.

Re:Good on France

[OrangeTide]

Yeah, sometimes religious people don't follow hyperbolic rhetoric. Perhaps they are used to accepting wild ideas from their authority figures instead of thinking for themselves.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Well, duh. Trudeau is a politician. Nice guys do not claw their way to the level of running entire countries.

That may well be, but the aspect of Trudeau's personality that I was referring to is that he is an imbecile.

As for Castro... I fully agree with you, he was exactly the sort of dictator the United States is happy to make friends with. He just wasn't on your side.

Well, personally, I think we should largely stop foreign military interventions, withdraw most of our troops from Europe and Asia, and stop support for foreign dictators. Unfortunately, foreign military adventures are popular in both parties, and Hillary had a war boner even bigger than McCain's.

However, as long as the US is dealing with foreign dictators, I very much prefer dealing with military dictatorships to dealing with communist dictatorships.

As for your opinion as a Canadian on this, I'll take it for all it's worth: nothing.

Re:Good on France

[MooseMiester]

Sure but please tell us exactly where YOU live please.

Re: Good on France

[tbannist]

The real question is: Why do you have a bug up your ass because the Prime Minister of Canada said a few nice words about a dead dictator? The dictator's dead, can't you let it go?

Re:Good on France

[DavidMZ]

Macron doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb, but if the Democrats had put up anybody like him, they would likely have won in the US as well.

Not the brightest bulb? The guy graduated from two of the most prestigious universities in France, has worked in several high profile positions both in the government and in the private sector, created is own political movement, and got elected president at 39. I don't know what you need.

Besides, if you speak French, you may want to look at his interviews on mediapart (paywalled). The guy is reactive, has well-thought ideas on complex issues, and explains them clearly. But yeah, you have to go beyond soundbites.

Re:Good on France

[tbannist]

There's Russian data in the document metadata. Could be Russia using the White Nationalists to try to control France. Hmm. For some reason that makes me think of a card game.

Re: Good on France

[ooloorie]

Why do you have a bug up your ass because the Prime Minister of Canada

I have a "bug up my ass" about Canadians and Europeans trying to persuade American voters to persuade them to be more like them. Here, it was Beauregard, a Canadian, who was making fun of Trump, and I think it's valid to point out how rotten his own leadership is.

The dictator's dead, can't you let it go?

Unfortunately, the ideology behind Castro isn't dead, and it guides popular mainstream US politicians.

Re:Good on France

[cwsumner]

Instead we have a government that passed a bill to allow people with mental illness to purchase firearms.

That's just propaganda from the people that want to ban all weapons of any kind, and leave everyone helpless.

The bill, that was rejected, would ban anyone who even visited a psychologist, including decorated soldiers that were required to have a checkup as part of their mustering out. Not good!

There are other laws to prevent the insane from having guns, the problem is that government privacy laws apply to them as well and prevent the situation from being reported. We are working on fixing that, but it must be done carefully.

Re:Good on France

[cwsumner]

because the gun carriers still think they are cowboys of a bygone era. virtually all the US cop dramas are rehashed cowboy scenarios where guns are always drawn

Hollywood lies...
If you agree not to judge us by the movies made about us, then maybe we will agree not to judge you by the movies made about you (and your's are worse). ;-)

Re:Good on France

[cwsumner]

those places don't have the "wild west" history or an out of date definition of a constitution to claim as a precedence for carrying penis extensions

You should not say things like that, because anyone who knows will know that you are an ID10T.

Re:Good on France

[cwsumner]

If we weren't drowning in fucking idiots, he'd never have got past the primaries. But we are, and he did.

If you think you are an elite, and that everyone else is an idiot, then you are not and they are not. ;-)

P.S. what really happened is that the voters used Trump to punish both parties as well as the established power structure.

Of course, life is not a zero-sum game.

A two player game has four states, not two. The standard response to someone changing it from win-win to win-lose, is to change it to lose-lose and crash everything. The voters are one player, the politicians and powerbrokers are the other player. So be careful how you play.

Re:Good on France

[c]

That may well be, but the aspect of Trudeau's personality that I was referring to is that he is an imbecile.

No, he's not. If that's what you believe, you're dumber than you think he is.

Just like nice guys don't get to the level of running countries, imbeciles don't either. He may not be a genius, but he's smart enough to have outmanoeuvred his political rivals, worked his way to the head of his party, and then won a major election against a very experienced and motivated opposition.

I don't know what it is about people who seriously call out their political opposition as "stupid". Especially when the opposition won.

Similarly, Trump isn't dumb. He's ruthless, cunning, impulsive, playing a completely different game from any politician we've ever seen, doesn't give a shit about who he steps on, isn't entirely sane, and doesn't appear to have the skills or interests needed to be a competent president, but he's definitely not stupid.

As for your opinion as a Canadian on this, I'll take it for all it's worth: nothing.

That's the most encouraging thing I've seen from you say so far.

Re:Good on France

[operagost]

I'm waiting for your comprehensive evidence that the majority of guns used in crimes in Chicago were legally purchased in Indiana.

Re:Good on France

[operagost]

A smooth transition into 4 more years of Obama-style nonsense, this time using her genitalia instead of her skin color to shut down dissent.

At least Trump has revived dissent and distrust of the government.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Just like nice guys don't get to the level of running countries, imbeciles don't either. He may not be a genius, but he's smart enough to have outmanoeuvred his political rivals, worked his way to the head of his party, and then won a major election against a very experienced and motivated opposition.

Oh, I'm sorry, you misunderstood. Trudeau is doubtlessly very smart at manipulating people and the political system for his own benefit. Hillary is the same way. It's bizarre that people like you seem to think that's a good thing.

Where Trudeau is an "imbecile" is the areas that actually matter to me and that he claims to be good at: economics and good government, as evidenced by his comment on Castro.

That's the most encouraging thing I've seen from you say so far.

So, you'll keep your nose out of stuff that's NOYB then, like US politics?

Re:Good on France

[c]

So, you'll keep your nose out of stuff that's NOYB then, like US politics?

Will you stop making arguments from false premises?

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Will you stop making arguments from false premises?

You're Canadian, are you not?

Re:Good on France

[c]

You're Canadian, are you not?

Yep.

Re:Good on France

[Reziac]

Also, if you remove all the gang homicides from the stats, the US homicide rate drops to something like 0.3 per 100k, which IIRC is the 3rd lowest in the world.

And gangs are mostly a function of "diversity" (mainly immigrants and 2nd generationers).

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Well, foreign interference in US politics is unacceptable, whether it comes from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Canada.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

"Where was your outrage for the past half century before Trump?"
That long ago, I was still a foreigner. And I had plenty of outrage then, now and in-between.

" I didn't become a Republican, I have become an Independent"
If you've been looking at the political landscape of the past several decades and drawing the conclusion that it's the *Democrats* who've become "nuttier & nastier*, I have to question your judgment.
An independent who doesn't vote? That's truly independent, I guess.
You do know that the ballot had much more than just Trump & Clinton on it, right?

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

A smooth transition into 4 more years of Obama-style nonsense, this time using her genitalia instead of her skin color to shut down dissent.

At least Trump has revived dissent and distrust of the government.

Which fucking universe did you teleport in from last week? The mantra of dissent & distrust has been alive and well for a long time.
Did you miss the Iraq War protests against Bush? The Tea Party protests against Obama?
The continual threat of GOP government shutdowns incl 1 successful one that lasted 2 weeks in Oct 2013?
And Occupy Wall Street went on for over a year during your Rip Van Winkle nap.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

The Presidency is not or should not be luck of the draw or a coin toss. The man has demonstrated ZERO integrity during 45 years of being in the public eye and knows nothing about what being President mean despite being close to more than one administration.

Can you imagine the outcry if Obama had said 100 days into the clusterfuck economy that he inherited "this is just too hard; I miss my old life"

Re:Good on France

[c]

Well, foreign interference in US politics is unacceptable, whether it comes from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Canada.

So, let me see if I understand this... a foreigner stating opinions about US politics is equivalent in your mind with interfering in US politics?

Re: Good on France

[erapert]

Castro did indeed create an amazing medical system for a third world nation and their education system isnt so bad.

Stop
spreading
this
myth.
Just stop.

Just use Google ffs.

Re:Good on France

[erapert]

[citation needed]

Re:Good on France

[BeanThere]

Very misleading to the point of being BS. Compare the per-capita homicide rates of, say, Seattle, Amsterdam, and Detroit. Amsterdam has a higher murder rate than Seattle, in spite of having the freedom to own and carry guns and a 28% gun ownership rate in the latter. So you'll have to do better than "It's Teh GUNZ hur hur"

Re: Good on France

[DarkVader]

That is pure idiocy.

Very little else need be said, you are totally, thoroughly, completely, and entirely incorrect.

Nothing could be further from the truth than your statement.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

Sure and everything in the election for Trump was in comparison to Clinton. Clinton was a joke of a candidate as well.

this is just too hard; I miss my old life

Has he said this or expressed this? Wouldn't you be happy over this if he resigned? lol what do you want? You are really projecting any and every failure it could possibly be. Calm down, there is still many years of Trump ahead of us.

Re:Good on France

[fred6666]

I guess you cherry picked Seattle because of it's low murder rate and Amsterdam because of its high? Very dishonest.
The point remain that if you compare western Europe to the USA, the murder rate is much higher in the USA. This is also true if you compare cities or regions, as long as you get the whole picture instead of cherry picking.

The rate (murders per 100,000 inhabitants) in the Netherlands is 0.7. No US state come close. Even Washington, a very safe state, has 3. The safest state, tiny rural New Hampshire, has a rate of 1.1, which is 57% higher than the Netherlands.

The most dangerous western European country is Belgium with 1.8. Only 3 US states are safer. As a whole, the USA has a rate of 3.9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Good on France

[operagost]

Did you notice that the Tea Party was called racist?

Government shutdowns aren't "dissent". They come from within the government.

In what fucking universe did you go to school?

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

Did you notice that the Tea Party was called racist?

Government shutdowns aren't "dissent". They come from within the government.

So what if they were called racist? The same has been said about Black Lives Matter.

In what fucking universe did you go to school?

This one. In which you also used the word "distrust"? What exactly convinces you that the GOP ever put any trust in Obama?
It wasn't a Dem or an Independent who jumped up in the middle of an address to Congress by shouting "You LIE!!"

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

Sure and everything in the election for Trump was in comparison to Clinton. Clinton was a joke of a candidate as well.

No she wasn't. I didn't consider her to be inspiring but she is experienced & competent.

this is just too hard; I miss my old life

Has he said this or expressed this?

Yup. Recorded during an interview with Reuters. "I loved my previous life. I had so many things going"
  "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

Wouldn't you be happy over this if he resigned? lol what do you want?

The only bad thing about him resigning would be that Pence would become President. Not sure if that'll be better; to replace a confessed pussy-grabber with one who's afraid to be alone with a female other than his wife.

You are really projecting any and every failure it could possibly be. Calm down, there is still many years of Trump ahead of us.

Y'know, I and others were telling people like you to all that fearmongering about Obama was just a load of crap and he never did or said anything close to what Trump has already done or plans to do.
That didn't even put in a dent in the amount of vitriol & B.S. that was directed against him.

Re:Good on France

[BeanThere]

If I was "cherry-picking" would I have put Detroit in there? Try again.

Re:Good on France

[BeanThere]

You are looking at national averages, which is disingenuous: US cities like Seattle and Detroit are covered by the same gun laws and yet vary from safer than European cities, to far more dangerous. Which means, it has almost nothing to do with the gun laws, and has to be something else. What that something else might be, is left as homework to the reader.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

No she wasn't. I didn't consider her to be inspiring but she is experienced & competent.

That is your opinion and half the electorate disagreed with you. I thought she was a joke and still think that.

Re:Good on France

[Agripa]

Americans kill each other with knives and other weapons at a proportionally high rate so unless European restrictions on firearms lower the homicide rate with other weapons, Americans are just more violent overall.

Re:Good on France

[fred6666]

You mentioned Detroit... except you didn't actually compare it to any city, in Europe or elsewhere. Amsterdam is the worst city in Europe according to some web sites. So yes, you clearly cherry picked.

Re:Good on France

[fred6666]

How about the fact that people can buy guns in many places in the USA and then bring them to cities without crossing any international border?

You are looking at national averages, which is disingenuous

How so? You can also look at metropolitain average if you prefer, you will also realize that Western European cities are much safer than similarly-sized US cities. Sure, you can probably find some exception by cherry picking Amsterdam (worst in Europe) and Seattle (I guess one of the safest major metro in the US), but on average, there is a big difference, as in 2-5x the murder rate. It's not even close.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

No she wasn't. I didn't consider her to be inspiring but she is experienced & competent.

That is your opinion and half the electorate disagreed with you. I thought she was a joke and still think that.

Fair enough - but the same argument works in her favor. Except of course that she lost the Electoral College despite easily winning the popular vote ( i.e. MORE than 1/2 the electorate)

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

That is irrelevant. The US is a union of states not a mob. Do you think the Senate is a good Idea for a bicameral Congress? Why would that idea not be good for a different branch of government? The whole point is to ensure that the Executive has the interests of a majority of states. There is no national vote. There are 50 different independent elections that Clinton lost a majority. Yes, she won by large margins in a few states but that shouldn't be enough to alienate the other states like Obama did with the 'fly-over' states.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

So, let me see if I understand this... a foreigner stating opinions about US politics is equivalent in your mind with interfering in US politics?

Not just "in my mind". Social media messaging is one of the major components of "foreign interference".

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

if you've been looking at the political landscape of the past several decades and drawing the conclusion that it's the *Democrats* who've become "nuttier & nastier*, I have to question your judgment.

Just as I question your judgment if you don't see how nutty and nasty Democrats have become.

An independent who doesn't vote? That's truly independent, I guess.

I didn't say "I don't vote", I said "I didn't vote". I'm sorry, maybe such subtleties of English are lost on you?

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

That is irrelevant. The US is a union of states not a mob. Do you think the Senate is a good Idea for a bicameral Congress? Why would that idea not be good for a different branch of government? The whole point is to ensure that the Executive has the interests of a majority of states. There is no national vote. There are 50 different independent elections that Clinton lost a majority. Yes, she won by large margins in a few states but that shouldn't be enough to alienate the other states like Obama did with the 'fly-over' states.

The "half the electorate" statement originally came from you. And suddenly it's irrelevant?
Btw, Trumplethinskin tweeted in 2012 that the Electoral College was a disaster for the country when Obama cleaned Romney's clock. But he was only too happy to praise it when it delivered him a win.
trumptwitterarchive.com
Your statement on the Senate is unclear but implies that you're not aware senators are elected by popular vote, not by an electoral college.

Re:Good on France

[haruchai]

Why wouldn't you vote when you think the nuts are going to win?

"Nutty & nasty" - ok, you show your nasty nuts and I'll show mine.
You go first.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Why wouldn't you vote when you think the nuts are going to win?

Because I didn't like either Trump or Hillary and didn't care much who won.

After the election, my views changed moderately: I have a somewhat more positive view of Trump and the Republicans and an even more negative view of Hillary and the Democrats.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

"half the electorate" isn't irrelevant. "winning the popular vote" is irrelevant. Sure, I could have made it more accurate by saying "about" but I didn't think any point would be made by such pedantics.

I honestly don't care what Trump says on Twitter.

Your statement on the Senate is unclear but implies that you're not aware senators are elected by popular vote, not by an electoral college.

The point of the Senate, as distinct from the House, is to give each state equal representation in a legislative body. Montana has the same "power" as California despite the huge population differences. The House, gives proportional representation to a legislative body. Montana doesn't get much say compared to California. The Electoral College is a mix between equal representation and proportional representation to ensure the Executive has the needs of a majority of states in mind.

If you read some of the Federalist Papers on the Senate and Electoral College one thing that is interesting is that the compromise they came up with (and ratified in the Constitution) was between small states (rural) and large states (urban). Today, those groups have the greatest differences in needs and wants from their politicians and government. The Executive, being made up from a diverse union must balance their focus between these two dominate opposing groups to ensure stability in the union. You cannot have the government ignore one of these groups for very long without causing anger and unrest.

Re:Good on France

[DigiShaman]

This is true. Poland is the only one that hasn't had a terrorist attack. But then again, they're the only one not accepting muzzies either. Smart move of them. If only the rest of Europe would take note!

Re:Good on France

[Tranzistors]

For me, an unknown had a chance of being better than a known bad.

Yeah, it's a common mistake. I live in Eastern Europe and there is every system you can think of. Stable rich states with really good social safety nets and high personal freedoms, and right in the neighbourhood nominally socialist states, that can fall apart if the strogman get a heart attack. Capitalist states of varying degree of regulations. No to mention plain old kleptocracies. Once you see how they all look like, the unknown is not that unpredictable. Here in Latvia, we had two governments run by businessmen and it was rather obvious that they indeed ran the state like a business, as in, bankrupting the state is an option, if it means more profit for the CEO. Since then we haven't elected any more businessmen.

TL;DR world is full of lessons to be learned and things can always get much worse.

Re: Good on France

[Hognoxious]

Where did anybody claim not to understand something, you great daft bleb?

BTW spaces can change meaning: pen island, therapist.

Oh, and learn to use the shift key.

Re:Good on France

[Lisandro]

Ok, that one was funny :)

Re:Good on France

[c]

Not just "in my mind". Social media messaging is one of the major components of "foreign interference".

Well, I can only suggest you disconnect yourself from the Internet. It's the only sure way to be sure you won't be influenced by foreigners.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

world is full of lessons to be learned and things can always get much worse.

Sure, but between the two I didn't see much difference.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Well, I can only suggest you disconnect yourself from the Internet. It's the only sure way to be sure you won't be influenced by foreigners.

And let people like you spew your propaganda unopposed? I don't think so.

I'd like the US not to turn into Canada or Europe, which is why I need to speak up when people like you try brag about the superiority of your glorious state.

Re:Good on France

[c]

I'd like the US not to turn into Canada or Europe,

I think at this point, most of us would be happy if the US just stays the US.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

I think at this point, most of us would be happy if the US just stays the US.

Well, guess what, Americans don't give a f*ck about what you would be happy about.

Re:Good on France

[david_thornley]

To be fair, nobody knew how corrupt or incompetent Trump's presidency would be before he took office.

Yeah, and nobody knew how complicated health care was, either. I'm completely unsurprised by Trump's Presidency.

Re:Good on France

[c]

Well, guess what, Americans don't give a f*ck about what you would be happy about.

Yes, we know; we find it cute how you treat us just like other Americans.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

What the hell are you talking about?

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

It's funny though you think that your kicking Muslims out post so over the top that it shouldnt have been taken literally. There are posts on slashdot that amount to what you said all the time

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

"So, we should just only have elites run the nation?"

You're putting words in my mouth. I only said idiots shouldn't be president.

"There are problems with democracy. The same reasons that the Senate exist is the same reason for the Electoral College in a different branch of government. Do you think the Senate is a good idea for a bicameral Congress?"

Empowering small states is only a small reason as to why the Senate exists (and yes I do disagree with that in that specific context). It's also there to provide two other things; to provide a body within congress that is less prone to rapid swings of opinion within the public with its elections being held every 6 years in a staggered fashion and to provide a body within congress that was not directly elected by the people as many of the founding fathers most certainly didnt trust the general public.

"It doesn't automatically mean good it just means he was an outsider and that anyone can become POTUS regardless of what established institutions want. That is a good thing. That is how you avoid civil war by ensuring the government accommodates the changing body politic of the nation."

Is it a good thing? Hitler was democratically elected too.

"Seriously, it sounds like you don't want a democracy yet rail on about popular vote and the people. What do you want?"

One or the other, this mixed bag shit has got to go.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

I was referring to 60's and 70's Republicans who were about as conservative as today's Democrats.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

No, she was a moderate who only adopted more progressive policies after being pushed to the left by Sanders. Such a shift to one side or the other during the primaries is not at all indicative of a candidate's real priorities and is regularly done by politicians.

Re: Good on France

[skam240]

The truth is utterly disgusting? What part of what Trudeau said was wrong?

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

I was referring to 60's and 70's Republicans who were about as conservative as today's Democrats.

From 1960 to 1980, the "moderate" wing of the Republicans had somewhat more power. Republicans still were against abortion, against a guaranteed minimum income, and against gay rights, and for free markets and balanced budgets.

Republicans haven't changed that much, except maybe for getting a little software on social issues. It's the Democrats that have been taken over (temporarily) by left wing radical; the senile, wrinkly detritus of the 1960's social movements, people like Clinton and Sanders. Hopefully, as they leave the scene, Democrats will return to some semblance of sanity.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

No, she was a moderate who only adopted more progressive policies after being pushed to the left by Sanders. Such a shift to one side or the other during the primaries is not at all indicative of a candidate's real priorities

So you are saying then that she was not only lying, but that she believed that those lies would be effective in misleading enough voters to hand her victory.

Personally, I simply don't know what Hillary believes anymore. I used to assume that she was a moderate, but given her history with Alinsky, it's just as likely that she was a radical pretending to be a moderate for all these years. In the end, it didn't matter.

and is regularly done by politicians.

True, but that doesn't make it alright. And I think Hillary's lies have been outside the normal range even for politicians.

Re: Good on France

[ooloorie]

Let me help you out there:

https://www.google.com/search?...

https://www.pastemagazine.com/...

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

Nixon, a Republican president, signed of on creating the EPA. Yes the Republican party has changed a lot since then.

The party today would never endorse such government interference in the private sector and yet here we are, not China, with our relatively clean air and water.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

Well I think we can settle together quite nicely on that Hillary wasn't all that great although lining Clinton up with Alinsky to define her as far left I think is not accurate as plenty of people go far left when they're young and I don't think the comparisons to her later life are terribly apt. Lots of politicians practice "real politik" like Alinksy, on both sides of the political spectrum but yet Hillary typically advocated moderate Democratic party values until Bernie made things uncomfortable for her.

Re: Good on France

[skam240]

Well your first link is literally internet garbage. Please get back to me as to its value.

And now I'm reading your second article and it makes no compelling case at all. Castro made third world medicine work and that really is a big fucking deal. By that example we know that third worlders dont have to live in the state most are in. Proper education and focus can get all people at least somewhat proper healthcare. I'm sorry that makes you angry but that's what he did and it's a pretty big deal.

I would never call Castro a good guy in a historic narrative but there really is quite a bit to learn from what he did and in a positive context.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Nixon, a Republican president, signed of on creating the EPA. Yes the Republican party has changed a lot since then. The party today would never endorse such government interference in the private sector

Well, as I was saying, Republicans were indeed somewhat more moderate in the 1960's and 1970's, but after that, they simply returned to historical norms. In addition, presidents often are not typical for what a party stands for. Also, the EPA was merely intended to consolidate environmental regulation that was already happening at the federal level anyway.

Democrats, since the 1990's, have started to embrace extreme left positions, such as democratic socialism, social justice, and critical theory. Between Republicans returning to their historical norms in the 1980's and Democrats gradually moving to the far left over the last couple of decades, the gap has indeed widened. But it's the Democrats that deviate from historical norms, not the Republicans.

and yet here we are, not China, with our relatively clean air and water

Yes, and we are also a relatively free market oriented society, as opposed to China's far left government. Leftist governments tend to be quite bad for the environment.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Well I think we can settle together quite nicely on that Hillary wasn't all that great although lining Clinton up with Alinsky to define her as far left I think is not accurate as plenty of people go far left when they're young and I don't think the comparisons to her later life are terribly apt. Lots of politicians practice "real politik" like Alinksy, on both sides of the political spectrum but yet Hillary typically advocated moderate Democratic party values until Bernie made things uncomfortable for her.

I'm not "defining her as far left". I am saying that she has been both far left and moderate and gone back and forth between the two. I simply don't know if she holds any coherent political beliefs at all.

And responding to Sanders the way she did was her big mistake. If she had stood up as a consistent and proud moderate, she ran a small risk of losing to Sanders, but she would have gone into the election with a much better profile. Instead, she came across as a dishonest and opportunistic sleazeball who tried to steal Sanders' chances, and at the same time left people like me wondering what her actual political views were, or if she simply was in the pocket of special interests all along.

Re: Good on France

[ooloorie]

Well your first link is literally internet garbage. Please get back to me as to its value.

It mirrors the stupidity of Trudeau's comments.

I would never call Castro a good guy in a historic narrative but there really is quite a bit to learn from what he did and in a positive context.

And what do you think is there "to learn" from Castro "in a postiive context"? Which parts of Cuban society would you like to see replicated in Canada or the US?

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

You're putting words in my mouth. I only said idiots shouldn't be president.

Whats the difference in practice? Define idiot. Then convince enough of the electorate that the definition is good. Then Convince the people that voted for Trump that Trump fits that definition. I am willing to bet you can't and it would never happen. Looks like Trump would still be president even if you had some arbitrary "no idiots" that didn't mean "only elites".... lol

Re: Good on France

[skam240]

No. your first link doing an image search for "Trudeaueulogies", a term used by people who don't like Trudeau to try to make funny memes about him is garbage. All it proves is that people who dont like Trudeau dont like him.

"And what do you think is there "to learn" from Castro "in a postiive context"? Which parts of Cuban society would you like to see replicated in Canada or the US?"

How about specifically one of the things Trudeau talked about, Cuba's medical system. They have an amazing medical system that's ranked in the same ball park as the US but yet they spend a tiny fraction of what we spend ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). What we could do with that with first world funding would be amazing.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

You need a better measuring stick, the democrats are right of center by first world standards.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

I disagree. Most successful presidential candidates tack to the left or right during their primaries which is when Hilary was advocating more left wing principles. She was being outdone by Bernie on that front so she moved farther left which again, is a standard tactic of successful nominees. I think outside of her presidential run, in a reasonably modern context, she has generally shown herself to be fairly moderate.

Hilary went left precisely because Bernie was so successful with his more left wing message and was taking votes from her in large quantities.

Re: Good on France

[skam240]

And wait a god damn second. I let you distract me from what we were actually talking about (and I hate it when people change the topic when it gets difficult for them)

What fucking part of what Trudeau said about Castro was wrong? Answer my damn question. I said what Trudeau said was true, you said that was disgusting, and I asked you what about the truth was disgusting? Your links are literally a meaningless reply to what I said.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

LOLROTFL!!!!!!:)))))))DDDD))))))!!!!!.

What are you a child or a simpleton? "LOL"? You were absolutely not "laughing out loud " as you wrote that and if you were express it with words.

As for the issue at hand, just because I think idiots shouldnt be president doesnt mean I have some sort of magic fool-proof test for determining idiots.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

I disagree.

You disagree with the fact that I simply don't know if she holds any coherent political beliefs at all.?

Hilary went left precisely because Bernie was so successful with his more left wing message and was taking votes from her in large quantities.

Which would mean... that she was lying about her political positions in order to get votes.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

You need a better measuring stick, the democrats are right of center by first world standards.

Nope, sorry, not true. Democrats resemble European parties (both conservatives and liberals) on the authoritarian-liberty dimension (Democrats are statists and authoritarian); but along the left-right dimension (inequality, social justice, race, spending, taxes, gay rights, abortion), they are pretty far to the left.

Re: Good on France

[ooloorie]

How about specifically one of the things Trudeau talked about, Cuba's medical system. They have an amazing medical system that's ranked in the same ball park as the US but yet they spend a tiny fraction of what we spend ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ). What we could do with that with first world funding would be amazing.

Let's assume that were true. Look at the health expenditure per capita graph. Notice how US per capita public spending is the same as, or higher than, all other OECD countries except Norway? What that means is that the US government has the money to institute, not just a Cuban-style, but a Canadian/UK/...-style single payer system any day they want to, simply by reforming Medicare/Medicaid and extending it to everybody.

The problem with US public health care is exceptionally poor management and a powerful medical lobby, both of which make it extremely inefficient. Extending the broken US single-payer system to the entire nation would cause medical costs to skyrocket and services to get much worse. Sander's plan he simply says "let's raise taxes on the rich"; in fact, there is nothing in his plan that addresses the core of the problem, namely the gross inefficiencies in Medicare relative to other single payer systems. All Sanders' plan is is a big handout to pharmaceutical companies and medical providers.

It's questionable whether Cuba really is as good as official statistics say, and, in any case, Cuba spends about as much per capita as South Korea now, so it's not all that cheap anymore. But even if it were true, it is wrong to attribute longer life expectancy or lower child mortality to a better medical system: authoritarian governments can do a lot to extend life expectancy, like telling people what to eat, what hobbies to engage in, aborting at-risk fetuses, mandating exercise, etc. Heck, Cuba dealt with the AIDS crisis first by locking up HIV-positive patients, then by forcing them into annual eight-week re-education camps. So, yeah, authoritarian shitholes can make people healthy and live longer, and because they need workers, they do just that; believe me, based on first-hand experience with real socialism: you don't want to live like that. That's also what makes Trudeau's comment so offensive to people who actually know real socialism.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

I was laughing and it was at you. I don't have to express it in any way other way. That is how I have always expressed it online. Why would I change it for you when you make me laugh?

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

It's not that I dont like it, it's that it projects childishness. Lots of people, including myself, dont take people who use internet accronyms seriously.

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

My point (and the point of the past few posts of our conversation) was that her doing that shouldnt cause confusion in regards to her actual political beliefs because it's commonly done. Do try to keep up

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

Inequality: Nope, the social programs Dems advocate for arent as significant as the programs actually in place in much of Western Europe. The tax rates Dems propose arent as redistributive either

Social Justice: Close but I think the laws in place against hate speach and the like (not a fan but they're there) push Europe ahead in this catagory. There's been little to no talk of hate speach laws in the US.

Race: Mixed bag here. Germany more so than us, France less and everywhere else is inbetween those two by my understanding.

Spending: Obviously Europe is more to the left then us with spending. Their socialised medicine alone puts them beyond us. The dems Obamacare doesnt even come close.

Taxes: Very wrong again, the tax rates in most of Western Europe are far more progressive and mainstream Dems dont advocate for much higher because it would be political suicide.

Gay marriage: you got one. The US allowing gay marriage pretty much puts us more to the Left on this issue and the Dems solidly back this.

Abortion: I actually dont know enough about European abortion policy in general to comment on this. I do know it's generally legal in Europe so shouldnt be too dramatic though.

So in summary, I think you're wrong as our Democrats are to the right on most of the points you list, particularly the most significant ones.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

Inequality: Nope, the social programs Dems advocate for arent as significant as the programs actually in place in much of Western Europe.

US government social spending in the US is above OECD average and higher than, say, the UK.

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/s...

The tax rates Dems propose arent as redistributive either

In fact, the US has the highest tax progressivity among OECD nations.

https://www.mercatus.org/publi...

That's on top of a large, regressive VAT tax in Europe.

Spending: Obviously Europe is more to the left then us with spending.

In fact, European budgets are nearly balanced and debts capped as a requirement of EU membership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Unlike the US, European countries cut social expenditures in order to meet their budget objectives.

Close but I think the laws in place against hate speach and the like (not a fan but they're there) push Europe ahead in this catagory.

Restrictions on free speech are a favorite of both the left and the right; in Europe, they largely came out of right-wing restrictions against criticizing church and state, and the restrictions aren't intended to help socially weak groups, but instead avoid conflict.

Their socialised medicine alone puts them beyond us. The dems Obamacare doesnt even come close.

Socialized medicine in Europe originated with right-wing governments, not left-wing governments, as a way to control workers. Many European nations have two-tiered systems, in which the bottom 90% are stuck with an inconvenient public system, and the top 10% enjoy a high quality private system. In addition, people have to pay for their coverage, either explicitly (Germany, Switzerland, etc.) or implicitly (other countries).

Note also that the US government already spends more per capita on healthcare than almost all other OECD governments (the problem is that the US government is spending the money so poorly):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, I don't understand in what way you think that Europe's health care systems (and they are all different) are more "left wing" than the US healthcare system.

So in summary, I think you're wrong as our Democrats are to the right on most of the points you list, particularly the most significant ones.

I could go on with the other points... but I think I made my point.

I think the source of your confusion and the confusion of many other Americans is that you view the political spectrum as one-dimensional. In fact, there is a left-right axis and an authoritarian-libertarian axis. European parties are overwhelmingly authoritarian and differ along the left-right axis. US parties are first of all much more heterogeneous than European parties, but to the degree that they differ, they differ along the authoritarian-libertarian axis, with Democrats leaning strongly towards authoritarianism. That is what makes US Democrats similar to Europeans. But European authoritarianism is frequently Christian conservative, not socialist.

Re:Good on France

[ooloorie]

My point (and the point of the past few posts of our conversation) was that her doing that shouldnt cause confusion in regards to her actual political beliefs because it's commonly done.

And where did she actually demonstrate that she has "actual political beliefs"? As far as I can tell, she has no "actual political beliefs" at all, all she has is an insatiable desire for power for its own sake.

In fact, Hillary told us herself that she will say whatever people want to hear, on several occasions: (1) in her explanation on her change of position on gay marriage, (2) in her/your explanation that she just told Sanders voters what they wanted to hear, and (3) in her "public/private position" statement to Wall St, (4) in her meeting with Warren. Her opportunism and lack of character was also evident in how she dealt with her husband's repeated infidelity.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

Interesting. Honestly, you are the first that I have met that has expressed this. I could understand an excessive amount of usage but... one "lol" doesn't count as excessive (at least for me). It is how I use the internet since I first went online. It's just a way of chatting like an accent IRL.

I guess, we could chalk it up to "damn kids and their rock n roll" or "get off my lawn" as I am sure I am probably younger than you. Well good sir, I am firmly off your lawn. ^_^

Re:Good on France

[skam240]

It's true I'm most likely older then you just based off slashdot ID numbers. On the other hand, internet acronyms were just getting off the ground when I was first getting online and I certainly used them much like I used all kinds of slang in my spoken speech back then. Then as I became adult, I adopted the speech patterns of adults and dropped them.

And to be truly honest, like most of the people who write "lol" in an internet post, I don't believe you honestly laughed out loud in any meaningful manner.

Re:Good on France

[penandpaper]

To each their own.

Re: Good on France

[skam240]

You missed something in your first link.

"Total expenditure includes both public and private expenditures."

The US does indeed spend more (which I knew already) but it most certainly is not all government money by a long shot

As for your politifact link, mortality rates and quality of health care are not the same thing. Yes, mortality rates are a good indicator of the quality of a healthcare system but there's more to healthcare than the two stats in that piece. Furthermore, even if Cuba's mortality rates are just similiar to the US that's still amazing for a third world nation considering the life styles many third worlders live

Also, here's countries ranked by their medical systems in a number of different catagories by the WHO

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

You can see the strong performance of other first world countries with their socialized systems. You can also see how closely the WHO ranks Cuba's system to our own. Pretty amazing compared to similiar third world nations.

Re: Good on France

[ooloorie]

You missed something in your first link. "Total expenditure includes both public and private expenditures." The US does indeed spend more (which I knew already) but it most certainly is not all government money by a long shot

You need to look at the graph, in particular the blue bars, which compare public and compulsory expenses. US per capita public healthcare spending is the same or greater than that of almost all other countries, even countries that cover all of their citizens with a public single payer system.

Therefore, the problem with the US isn't in the pink portion of the graph (the private spending), the problem in the US is that Medicare/Medicaid take in enough taxes to cover all Americans European-style, but only manage to cover less than 40% of Americans. That problem doesn't get fixed by forcing even more people to switch to our broken public system, that problem needs to get fixed by fixing Medicare/Medicaid.

As for your politifact link, mortality rates and quality of health care are not the same thing.

I completely agree. That's why I pointed to the Politifact page. But life expectancy and child expectancy are the statistics usually cited when extolling the virtues of Cuba's health care system.

Also, here's countries ranked by their medical systems in a number of different catagories by the WHO

Look at some of the criteria used in that report. For example, In sum, the way health care is financed is perfectly fair if the ratio of total health contribution to total non-food spending is identical for all households, independently of their income, their health status or their use of the health system. This indicator expresses the trenchant view of Aneurin Bevan, that “The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.” That is not a measure related to the quality of healthcare at all, it's something that measures conformance to socialist ideology. It's not surprising that Cuba scores highly on such measures while the US scores poorly, but that is irrelevant to the quality of the healthcare system.

And from experiencing socialist healthcare first hand, I can also guarantee you that people like "Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland" will not be "treated alike"; people like her get special, high quality treatment, just like the political elites in Cuba. I think she is an utterly deplorable person.

Anyway, leaving the ideological b.s. of the WHO aside, by what objective criteria do you think Cuba's health care system is doing a good job? It is as expensive as South Korea's. Ask yourself: would you rather be treated in Cuba or in South Korea?

Re:Good on France

[Asteconn]

In that case I stand corrected

Re:Good on France

[Maritz]

Sorry for the grumpy tone. Guess I can be a bit of a dick. :-/

Bad day to be Putin

[Lisandro]

Congratulations to the French people.

Re:Bad day to be Putin

[Tough Love]

I for one am ready to believe everything bad of Putin, but I don't think this was him.

Compare and contrast with last year's interference in the US election. Most importantly: why did the leaks happen only at the very last minute?

I compared, I contrasted, and I saw exactly the same people at work, using exactly the same tactics. The release was at the last minute because that is when it is most effective, with the least time to counter it. They were incrementally improved the tactics that played out so effectively in the American election hijack.

Re:Bad day to be Putin

[dave420]

ChrisQ is that you?

Re:Bad day to be Putin

[Lisandro]

^^^^ This.

Re:Bad day to be Putin

[Reziac]

A reporter stops a French kid on the street and asks him,

"Hey, kid! Now that Macron is our President, what do you want to be when you grow up now that our country is saved?"

The kid replies, "A foreigner."

Re:At least, Putin is no sexist

[Sique]

In the U.S., he actually bet against the female candidate.

Because open borders have worked so well for them.

[DaRyuujin]

I'm amazed with all the issues the french people are facing due to their open borders that people were willing to just keep the status quo going.

Re: Here's the REAL 'hack' w/ fake votes

[Anonymous Coward]

The expat votes aren't even counted if the result from residents is decisive enough.

Re:Here's the REAL 'hack' w/ fake votes

[Lisandro]

Yeah, i'm pretty sure those account for the 65-35 lead Macron has right now.

Glad to see a little sanity

[rsilvergun]

Though to be fair Macron was orders of magnitude better than Hillary. Maybe not as a public servant but at least at campaigning. Hopefullyâ post Trump the rest of the world will take the far right and the working class problems they play to seriously.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Lisandro]

This had to be said: how Macron will perform as a president is a giant question mark. This is the first public office the guy will hold.

What makes his win refreshing is that the alternative was Marine fucking Le Pen. In that sense this campaign was reminiscent to the Clinton-Trump election, i.e., a decision between a mediocre candidate and an unfathomable one. Guess the French were wiser this time around.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[dcollins]

Based on what? He's never held public office and my very-left French partner (who campaigned hard for Hillary) has been calling him "nothing but a wet noodle".

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if a Clinton and Trump supporters both don't like macron... that can only be good :P

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Cochonou]

The main difference between the elections in France and the elections in the US, is that there was a choice between 11 candidates on the first turn, four of which have had a score above 19% .

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Lisandro]

That is very true. Then again the US electoral system is *ahem* interesting and quite unlike any other country in the world. It is quite normal to have close first turns in Europe.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Exactly right. Many Bremainers and Clintonies were/are quite arrogant whereas this guy seems like a good guy. On top of it he looks very French. Stated policy goals play a part but we mostly vote for the person we like as another human being.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[PPH]

Well, at least no skeletons in Macron's closet. You can hack e-mail and leak the contents to the public all you want. But if there isn't anything illegal/unethical/embarrassing in them, it's not going to affect the election very much.

If there was a hack but no leak, I'd worry more. Because that's when the adversary is likely to have found something usable as leverage.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Kjella]

Though to be fair Macron was orders of magnitude better than Hillary. Maybe not as a public servant but at least at campaigning. Hopefullyà post Trump the rest of the world will take the far right and the working class problems they play to seriously.

In 2002 dad Le Pen got 18% of the vote, now daughter Le Pen got 35% of the vote. France has been in a continuous state of emergency since November 2015. There's been both targeted attacks (Charlie Hebdo) and untargeted attacks (Paris, Nice). And the rest of the establishment is so busy trying to prove they're not islamophobes they'll continue to refuse to acknowledge there's a problem. Here in Norway it's election in September and it looks like we'll vote in a more pro-immigration government than today, despite the fact that third world immigration is an economic disaster, integration is not working and we're inviting back in medieval attitudes to separation of church and state, democracy, freedom of speech, equality of the sexes, LBGT rights and so on.

The saddest thing is that we're backing out of almost every conflict out of religious tolerance. We'd never allow people to wear ski masks to schools and banks and whatnot, but if you want to wear a Niqab that's okay in the name of religious tolerance. We've become afraid of christmas, pork, alcohol and everything that might possibly offend some uptight Muslim to a degree we'd never considering for an abstinent vegan of any other religious conviction. We constantly have apologists that say it's better for girls to have separate swimming lessons in burkinis than to not have them show up for swimming lessons at all. And Trump didn't help, he's got a microscopic problem compared to Europe and turned a molehill into a mountain. That only silenced those who should be protesting.

It's very telling that most of the world's Islamic nations don't want the refugees, they're being routed into Europe and we let them come by the millions. There's never been a problem with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or any other foreign religion or other denominations of Christianity like Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox it's always the same religion that doesn't integrate. They don't get along with Christians in Europe, they don't get along with Hindus in India, not anywhere with anyone. Saudi Arabia is at the center of it all and the most backwards wealthy country in the world where women can't even drive a car, why do we want more of that religion? I really, really don't understand why we're such a glutton for punishment.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary would have been fine. Both her and Macron are now what we describe as proudly Neoliberal - That is they support evidence based economic policy tempered with progressive policy where the market does not not produce a fair or desirable outcome.

You know neoliberal ideals are on to something when they catch shit from far-left Berniebro socialists and far-right Trumpette fascists.

Globalist? Free trade? Yeah. Fuck yeah. Fucking proudly motherfucker. Nothing has done more to bring more people out of poverty than global free trade.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[MightyMartian]

Even if what you say is true, what of it? The French voted in a way to express their desire to remain in the EU. It's that simple.

You seem, some electorates are capable of looking beyond the political leader as an individual, and at the actual ideal itself, and a majority of French voters made it clear they had absolutely no desire to turn their country over to a far right nationalist who wanted to pull France out of the EU (even if, as it became clear she was losing, Le Pen tried to fabricate a European-friendly face).

The National Front are a pack of anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis. In a way, it's irrelevant whether Macron has any of your supposedly required experience for leading (I mean, he was only a former banker and economic minister, so what does he know, eh?), the fact is that he represents moderation and pro-European sentiment.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[ceoyoyo]

Elections for the US congress and senate are reminiscent of the UK electoral system, and most systems that descend from it (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). The US presidential election system is pretty uniquely American.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Solandri]

This. Instant runoff voting systems have mathematically been proven to yield better ("fairer") results in elections. The plurality wins system the U.S. uses (and especially the plurality by state + electoral college method) is one of the worst, and is what results in the system gravitating towards two parties who represent the extremes, rather than the mean.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Zumbs]

This is the first public office the guy will hold.

According to wikipedia, he was Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs in France 26 August 2014 – 30 August 2016. I think that counts as a public office?

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[dcollins]

LOL "There's never been a problem with Jews".

No, Europe has never had a problem with Jews. No one's ever accused them of being separatist, not sufficiently Christian, "doesn't integrate". No one's every been able to whip up a crowd into heinous hateful action against the Jews.

This right-wing agitprop is just racism du jour. Discouragingly, apparently it will never end. A boot stomping a human face forever.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

"The National Front are a pack of anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis"

It will be difficult to convince Louis Aliot (Jewish grandfather https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Aliot) and David Rachline (Jewish Ukrainian grandparents https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rachline), both top-level leaders of the Front National.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, by far the largest numbers of Syrian refugees are in Islamic countries. The top three destinations are Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Germany is #4, then it's Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt.

So to say "they're being routed to Europe" is kinda - well, not true.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Second_Derivative]

>That is they support evidence based economic policy tempered with progressive policy where the market does not not produce a fair or desirable outcome.

This is a state of affairs I would be willing to support. To describe modern day neoliberalism in these terms is to fall somewhere, depending on how charitable I am feeling, between propaganda and delusion.

"Evidence based economic policy" is complete bullshit. The consensus among academic economists on modern day economic policy is damning, but we see a tiny minority of Austrian school economists and members of the Chicago School of Economics being rolled out to clothe a slate of incredibly socially destructive policies in a costume of scientific respectability, because these individuals dogmatically promote policies that the wealthy elite want to see implemented, and damn the facts if they do not fit.

Progressive policy in the modern day is nonexistent, it has been burned to the ground. Democrat or Republican, the government is in the business of lowering taxes on the rich while slashing social services for the poor. "It is a basic tenet of conservatism that the poor will only work harder if they are given less money and the rich will only work harder if they are given more money". Racism and fear of the other has been deployed to devastating effect as a cover to dismantle the welfare state and the postwar social mechanisms that were intended to provide equal opportunities to citizens from all backgrounds.

Neoliberalism has become a dirty word because it is morally and scientifically bankrupt. It decries the basic foundations of an equitable society that had been in place for decades as far-left extremism while adopting a radically economically right-wing fetishization of market forces as a cure for all social ills. It is "intensely relaxed" about the concentration of wealth among the wealthy while living standards and economic security are eroded. It turns a blind eye to lawbreaking by corporations and wealthy individuals while intruding into private individuals' communications, use of recreational substances, and reproductive rights, undermining democracy and the rule of law in the process. And of course there's all the death and destruction wrought by endless intervention and warmongering in the middle east. I could go on...

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Kjella]

Jews have been the scapegoats for a whole lot of things, there's plenty of hate to go around. There's not much a black man can do to make friends with a Ku Klux Klan member. But when have they ever made special demands for their religious minority? When have they demanded the rest of society bend to their way of life? When have they ever acted with disdain towards the society they live in? When have they committed atrocities against people who believe differently or changed religion?

They've been a despised pariah caste, but it's other people that have had a problem with the Jews, not the Jews that have had a problem with everybody else. In fact, they seem to be the world religion that cares the least about what non-Jews believe or do and make very little if any effort to convert others to Judaism. Try eating pork together with Jews and Muslims, it's neither kosher nor halal but I'll give you 100:1 odds that if anyone complains it's a Muslim. P.S. A lot of the arab world is still where Europe was before Hitler.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[infernow]

This is the first public office the guy will hold.

According to wikipedia, he was Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs in France 26 August 2014 – 30 August 2016. I think that counts as a public office?

I think the GP means that this will be the first elected office Macron has held. Ministers are appointed.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Lisandro]

Not by election though but yes, i stand corrected.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Lisandro]

In a Hillary Macron vote, Hillary should and would win.

Beware now. I said the exact same about Clinton-Trump, and here we are.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[dunkelfalke]

He is right about modern Judaism being a non-proselytizing religion, because - according to Judaism - as long as people follow the seven Noah laws, they are fine. Moreover, people who actually want to convert are actively discouraged to do so by the rabbis.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[skam240]

Now, proper declarations first, I'm an American but I do enjoying vacationing in Europe and have so for some time. For starters, pork and alcohol are not in decline in Europe, I love both and both a very available. Second; you're scaremongering over swim classes? Oh, what a sacred institution to offend!

Personally I think it's quite noble that Europe is taking in a ton of refugees from a region experiencing a lot of turmoil. Here in America we used to do that for Europe (oh great, we have the mafia now!) but we've recently lost the taste for helping those who need help internationally and instead descended into the xenophobic fear that one out every 10,000 Muslim immigrant might commit a crime.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[bazorg]

In the UK, the Daily Mail didn't even mention Macron's victory in the front page today, and N Farage is one of several Leave campaigners to say that France is doomed, pretty much like earlier ACs did in this site.

Macron seems to be an annoyance to a lot of deplorables.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Maritz]

turn the world into one homogeneous consumer base to consume our annual iteration of flashy tat.

It's weird how the xenophobes apparently want a world full of diversity. They just want to be the best kind of human. Aw, diddums.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Maritz]

Jews have been the scapegoats for a whole lot of things, there's plenty of hate to go around. There's not much a black man can do to make friends with a Ku Klux Klan member. But when have they ever made special demands for their religious minority? When have they demanded the rest of society bend to their way of life? When have they ever acted with disdain towards the society they live in? When have they committed atrocities against people who believe differently or changed religion?

They've been a despised pariah caste, but it's other people that have had a problem with the Jews, not the Jews that have had a problem with everybody else. In fact, they seem to be the world religion that cares the least about what non-Jews believe or do and make very little if any effort to convert others to Judaism. Try eating pork together with Jews and Muslims, it's neither kosher nor halal but I'll give you 100:1 odds that if anyone complains it's a Muslim. P.S. A lot of the arab world is still where Europe was before Hitler.

All religions demand special treatment. What you're failing to do is treat them as all equally worthless, which is precisely what they are.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[Maritz]

So to say "they're being routed to Europe" is kinda - well, not true.

Oooh, I bet he'll stop saying that now. lol.

Re:Glad to see a little sanity

[mjwx]

"The National Front are a pack of anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis"

It will be difficult to convince Louis Aliot (Jewish grandfather https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and David Rachline (Jewish Ukrainian grandparents https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), both top-level leaders of the Front National.

Some vague allusions to Jewish parents does not prove that Front National are not Neo-Nazis.

If you bothered to look at FN's policies, you'll see that they are fascists with a racist agenda. OK, so they've swapped from Jews to Muslims, that does not make racism (or xenophobia) acceptable.

not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

French politics have long been sick, and the sluggish economy with little hope for young workers is a result.
Sick how?
In every election cycle where the French have a choice between change and stagnation, all the parties who pretend to be opponents in the lead-up band together and urge everybody to vote for which ever final candidate is desired by the rich globalist investors class. It never matters who the candidates are, the press and nearly all the parties band together to oppose change and oppose anybody opposed to globalism.
The French people will now get several more years of stagnation terrorism, EU domination, burdens of EU bailouts for Greece, EU mandated open borders, etc and then they will get another chance at change.....which they will again stupidly reject because they are told to.

Re:not surprising

[mvdwege]

He really isn't. "Rich globalist investors" has been an anti-semitic shibboleth since the 1930s. And the FN is a traditional fascist party with roots in Vichy France.

I note there's lots of you ACs out today. And lots of downmods on my anti-semitism call-out. Gee. This is my total lack of surprise.

Re:not surprising

[Xest]

Did you ever stop to think that's because maybe, no matter how much you may wish to moan about everything, this is as good as it gets?

I know, I know, you want to listen to the fascist who tells you she can solve all the worlds ills if we just blame it on those guys.

Yeah, Europe tried that, didn't work well, turns out it was actually much worse than what everyone is sticking to instead. Rather than assume everyone is an ignorant drone and you're the only enlightened person on the planet, maybe you should consider that in fact there's a good reason that people vote for the status quo that's made them the 5th richest nation in the world despite having a fraction of the world's population and resources to achieve that success?

Yes, I know, it's all terrible, everything's awful with the liberal West, it's terrible, sure, great, only it's just less terrible than all the alternatives. Even in the modern era you only have to look at Putin's Russia to see how awful the autocratic miserable hate filled blame gaming alternative is. I don't know about you but I'd much rather be at the bottom of the wealth ladder in somewhere like France, than at the bottom of the wealth ladder in Russia. That's why people rejected Le Pen, because no matter how bad things may appear to be in somewhere like France, no matter how much you may wish to whine about, no matter where on the wealth ladder you sit, you're still better off, and more free, than you would be under the alternative that was on offer.

Re:not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for that but you obviously have no idea about political life in France:
Vichy government was an occupation one, and Petain was elected by an Assemblee Nationale of the Front Populaire (left wing, and also liberal bourgeoisie) in majority. Most "collaborators" were strong opponents of the right-wing movements such as "Action Francaise". The first people in the Resistance were btw from Action Francaise, or at least, strongly right-wings ("La Cagoule") which is one of the many origins - some of them left-wing - of the Front National

"Rich globalist investors" are indeed, in this context, top-level capitalists - frequently from the US - who can afford to speculate on entire nations.A good example is, in the 1930s, "Henry Ford" who wrote - officially, with the complicity of the American establishment - this horrible book : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew. Also, the American big business helped Third Reich : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar .

Have quick read about economic life in France now, for example how pension funds are buying French companies, sacking people etc... Then you will understand what "rich globalist investors" mean.

Re:not surprising

[mvdwege]

Oh fuck off with your neo-Nazi apologia. For one example, the FN traces its ancestry back to Occident, formed by Pierre Sidos, who was convicted of Nazi collaboration in 1946.

The FN is a direct descendant of the Nazi collaborators in Vichy.

Re:Sad day for Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the "sensible" thing to do would have been to put fucking neo-nazis in power ?

Do you actually KNOW what the Front National is ? Where they come from ? What they advocate ?

That's the problem with people who think that one form of extremism is an acceptable alternative to another form of extremism. They learn nothing from history. They're simply unintelligent, it's as simple as that. They're not evil, or hateful, or racist/sexist/whatever. They're just plain below average intelligence.

Re: Here's the REAL 'hack' w/ fake votes

[godrik]

French citizen in North America voted on Saturday (local time). Our votes were counted yesterday.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[Lisandro]

"Islamic state"? France?

What in the name of the good fuck are you talking about?

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[admin7087]

Well, I hate to say so, but it just looks as if the French people are smarter than you.

Wow

[Ryanrule]

Lots of angry russia bots posting here. I guess some are getting sent to siberia for their failure.

Re:Wow

[serviscope_minor]

and lots of angry Russians with mod points too by the looks of it.

Re:Wow

[Tough Love]

Lots of angry russia bots posting here. I guess some are getting sent to siberia for their failure.

Mod up.

Re:Wow

[butzwonker]

Slashdot has been 'cracked' by Russian trolls around the beginning of last year, but somehow they seem to have lost foothold recently. They mostly post as AC's nowadays. Maybe there were some changes to the moderation system behind the scenes to weed them out.

Re:Wow

[argStyopa]

You DO understand that sometimes people might simply disagree with your personal political preferences, and that doesn't automatically make them Russian bots, right?

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

[riskkeyesq]

Congratulations! The French education system scores another win.

Re:Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

[ooloorie]

Le Pen is the fucking fascist.

The difference between socialism and fascism is like the difference between dying from bubonic plague and dying from smallpox.

Re:Sad day for Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Kebabs are pretty tasty. Lots of people like Kebabs. You would also if you tasted one, but its hard to taste food when your head is up your ass.

You can whine all you want about SJWs or political correctness, but there is nothing sensible about fascism. There is nothing sensible about ISIS either. Not all muslims are extremists and not all extremists are muslim. Those are very simple truths that you choose to refute.

One extremist begets another. And so on. At least the French are more aware of this than Americans.

Egalité, fraternité, liberté. Vive la France!

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[jeremyp]

The dangers are exaggerated and they know it for the most part.

Sexism and Democrats

[mi]

Her opponents claimed — during their sole debate — the following, I quote:

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

Would you like me to spell out the 5 lunacies packed into that one phrase of his? Do you disagree, that, had Palin (or any Republican) said something remotely as idiotic as this, all newspapers and all TV-channels would've been dwelling on it for weeks and months? But, because Biden was a Democrat, you never even knews about this until now...

Re:Sexism and Democrats

[skam240]

Wow, I didn't realize trying to displace Hezbollah was a bad thing. Thanks for enlightening me!

Re:Sexism and Democrats

[mi]

I didn't realize trying to displace Hezbollah was a bad thing.

You really are a dishonest piece of shit, aren't you?

Re:Sexism and Democrats

[mi]

Don't be an asshole — stick to either downmodding or commenting.

Re:Sexism and Democrats

[skam240]

I'm not saying committing ground forces to the region again is a great idea but displacing Hezbollah certainly isnt a terrible one.

Or hey, maybe I should just call you names, you self absorbed, shithead.

Re:At least, Putin is no sexist

[Sique]

Once again, someone tries to rewrite history.

Russian hackers broke into the emails of the Democratic National Congress. Russian hackers published (allegeded or true) details from Hillary Clinton's campaign shortly before the election. Donald Trump's candidate for National Security Advisor Michael Flynn met with the Russian ambassador.

Whatever you are up to, stick to the facts!

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[PopeRatzo]

The President of Austria even suggested that the time is coming to force white women to wear headscarves to support Islam.

I'm not sure citing a President of Austria in regards to protecting the white race is a good look in Europe. Last time, it didn't work out so well for them.

Re:Sad day for Europe

[MightyMartian]

Exactly. Le Pen is the only slightly more pleasant face on a band of actual out and out anti-Semitic Fascists.

Re:Sad day for Europe

[MightyMartian]

I'm all for your parents forcing you into intense cognitive therapy, and taking away your computer until you learn how to communicate like a sensible and decent human being.

Re:Bye bye France

[MightyMartian]

Muslims have been in France for over a century. Unsurprising as France invaded and colonized the lands in which they lived.

Re:Macron the sly french fox of all trades!

[skam240]

You (quite innocently I'm sure) left out at least one option. Russia performed the hack and planted false emails in the release because they didnt have any good dirt and some one fucked up a little in making the fakes.

As noted before, I'm sure it was a completely innocent mistake that you left out the biggest running theory right now as to what happened and the one the casts Russia in a poor light.

Re:Macron the sly french fox of all trades!

[modmans2ndcoming]

The fact that you think that there was no option C: "Russia fabricated the off shore accounts" shows that you have a conspiratorial bent and your ideas are suspect.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[DaRyuujin]

That's your opinion. It's a good thing I know I'm well educated and bother to research things from a neutral perspective because otherwise you might just be right about me.

Well, Doctor Who is pretty cool.

[hey!]

Maybe there's something to that running water thing.

Re:Sad day for Europe

[ceoyoyo]

Convincing a major western country to elect an extremist government by killing a couple of dozen people in a handful of low-tech attacks would be a pretty dramatic demonstration of the vulnerability of our current systems to terrorism.

Hopefully that doesn't happen.

False

[Nova Express]

The Panama Papers revealed extensive, documented financial ties between Putin and Clinton cronies:

Almost lost among the many revelations is the fact that Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Though hardly a household name, this firm is well known inside the Beltway, not least because its CEO is Tony Podesta, one of the best-connected Democratic machers in the country. He founded the firm in 1998 with his brother John, formerly chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, then counselor to President Barack Obama, Mr. Podesta is the very definition of a Democratic insider. Outsiders engage the Podestas and their well-connected lobbying firm to improve their image and get access to Democratic bigwigs.

Which is exactly what Sberbank, Russia’s biggest financial institution, did this spring. As reported at the end of March, the Podesta Group registered with the U.S. Government as a lobbyist for Sberbank, as required by law, naming three Podesta Group staffers: Tony Podesta plus Stephen Rademaker and David Adams, the last two former assistant secretaries of state. It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect of her plans to take the White House this November.

Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector.

It’s hardly surprising that Sberbank sought the help of Democratic insiders like the Podesta Group to aid them in this difficult hour, since they clearly understand how American politics work. The question is why the Podesta Group took Sberbank’s money. That financial institution isn’t exactly hiding in the shadows—it’s the biggest bank in Russia, and its reputation leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody acquainted with Russian finance was surprised that Sberbank wound up in the Panama Papers.

And that is just one of the many documented financial ties between Podesta/Clinton and Putin's regime.

Which is it?

[pipingguy]

"right-leaning Canadian site" vs. "far-right video content".

Re:Macron the sly french fox of all trades!

[Hognoxious]

its alley Le Pen

I can't say I know her that intimately.

Bwahahaha

[GameboyRMH]

LOL suck it centipedes!

Re:Macron the sly french fox of all trades!

[burni2]

If you would have read the bold sentence you would see the striking similarity between what you wrote and my post.

Re:Macron the sly french fox of all trades!

[burni2]

.. read the sentence written in bold and you get what you wrote ..

ok, for the hard hats "wikileaks has been duped" ... by whom one might think .. well the spanish inquisition? or Dennis Moore?

No, by the russians .. because they'd know Assange will publish everything ..

Geography 101 - Russia is on two continents

[bjdevil66]

Western Russia IS part of Europe. And it's not a small part, either. I don't think Hitler's forces ever made it to Asia, but they still conquered millions of square miles of Russia before retreating.

Protest vote

[manu0601]

Here are the results with abstention and protest vote

• Citizen not registered: 9%
• Abstention: 23% (large for a french presidential election)
• Blank votes: 8% (unusually high)
• Emmanuel Macron: 40%
• Marine Le Pen: 20%

Re:Protest vote

[Jzanu]

Can't find a less biased source for 1/3 non-representation? There's a reason for that.

Re:Protest vote

[manu0601]

Here you are: results from France interior minister which is in charge of organizing elections at the national level.

The only missing number is non registered citizens. You get it from France national statistics agency (INSEEE). On march 1st 2017, you had 45.678 million registered voters, and you get the number of 61.621 million nationals from 2014 census. Then you still have to dig statistics to find the number of citizen (people of more than 18 years old and that were not deprived from their civil rights) and get the number of 9%.

Re:Sad day for Europe

[guruevi]

You should wonder more why across the entire EU, these "neo-nazis" have 40-60% of the support? Back in the day, they did barely got a single seat, if they got any at all, now they got majority or near-majority amount of seats in the governments and are only held away because of things like 6 or even 10-party coalitions creating a very unstable government (as soon as a party walks away the government collapses, so guess how well that government works with a Christian-Socialist-Islam-Centrist-Conservative coalition party)

Re:Macron the sly french fox of all trades!

[guruevi]

Yeah, I'm sure that the Russians had plenty of time to fabricate 9GB worth of files in the 24h when the hack was confirmed by the Macron camp and the actual release of it.

Re: Macron the sly french fox of all trades!

[bestweasel]

You're not thinking straight. The hack was performed before it was announced, maybe weeks before, and only some documents have been alleged to be forged, not 9GB.

Wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

'On Friday WikiLeaks also disputed the Macron campaign's claim that the leak mixed real documents with fake ones. "We have not yet discovered fakes in #MacronLeaks & we are very skeptical that the Macron campaign is faster than us."'

Macron's campaign has the originals, it's much faster to run a diff then to exhaustively check each document for plausibility. WikiLeaks is talking rubbish.

Macron email hack wan't the main intervention

[ICantFindADecentNick]

The french two round system has come to their aid here. The initial intervention was the destruction of the previous mainstream front runner, the republican, Fillon. The most likely outcome was then a run off between Le Pen and a very weak socialist, Hamon, which she'd have had a good chance of winning. They were too late in trying to get to Macron to cause the kind of destabilization that they want because he did too well in the first round. We'll never find out exactly who "they" are - but we should take note to build some checks into the political system to keep it robust against these kind of influences.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[dave420]

It's almost as if you've been told a bunch of bullshit and the sky isn't falling in France...

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[Kiuas]

You can deny it all you want, but it will happen during your lifetime. They reproduce like rabbits.

This argument is so unfounded in reality that it now has its own Snopes aricle detailing why it's BS, quoting a couple relevant parts:

"France: 1.8 children per family; Muslims, 8.1"

The French government doesn’t collect statistics by religion, so it is impossible to say what the precise fertility rates among different religious groups in France are.

But no country on earth has such a high fertility rate, and in Algeria and Morocco, the two nations which send the largest numbers of Muslim immigrants to France, the fertility rate is 2.38, according to the UN’s 2008 figures. - -

"In the Netherlands, 50% of all newborns are Muslim."

As of 2004, Muslims comprised about 5.8% of the population of the Netherlands. In order for this small percentage of the population to account for “50% of all newborns,” Muslim women in the Netherlands would have to be giving birth, on average, to about 14 to 16 times as many babies each as non-Muslim women. - -

"Currently in Belgium, 25% of the population and 50% of all newborns are Muslim."

Muslims are the second-largest religious group in Belgium, but they still only account for about 4%-5% of the population. And, as noted above, for that small a segment of the population to be accounting for “50% of all newborns” in the country, Muslim women would have to be giving birth to incredibly large numbers of children each. - -

One fact that gets lost among distractions is that the birthrates of Muslim women in Europe — and around the world — have been falling significantly for some time.
[S]harp reductions in fertility among Muslim immigrants reflect important cultural shifts, which include universal female education, rising living standards, the inculcation of local mores, and widespread availability of contraception. Broadly speaking, birthrates among immigrants tend to rise or fall to the local statistical norm within two generations.

The decline of Muslim birthrates is a global phenomenon. Most analysts have focused on the remarkably high proportion of people under age 25 in the Arab countries, which has inspired some crude forecasts about what this implies for the future. Yet recent UN data suggest that Arab birthrates are falling fast, and that the number of births among women under the age of 20 is dropping even more sharply.

The falling fertility rates in large segments of the Islamic world have been matched by another significant shift: Across northern and western Europe, women have suddenly started having more babies Immigrant mothers account for part of the fertility increase throughout Europe, but only part. And, significantly, many of the immigrants are arrivals from elsewhere in Europe, especially the eastern European countries admitted to the European Union in recent years.

There are valid concerns with regards to immigration and integration of immigrants from everywhere (including eastern Europe) but this assumption that somehow the muslims will 'outbreed' other Europeans is statistically entirely unfounded and based on numbers that the far.right blogosphere has pulled out of their ass.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[skam240]

I didn't realize a religion was an ethnicity.

Retard...

Re: Here's the REAL 'hack' w/ fake votes

[skam240]

Evidence please. I'm sure the media reported on speculations as to those votes but I think you're lying overall.

Re:Sad day for Europe

[butzwonker]

You should wonder more why across the entire EU, these "neo-nazis" have 40-60% of the support?

That's literally all the far right is good at - having a big mouth and making up numbers and "alternative facts".

Re:At least, Putin is no sexist

[Maritz]

Oh look you got to post the links that you managed to refrain from posting in the GP. Trump is Putin's candidate.

Re: At least, Putin is no sexist

[Maritz]

You like the word "irrefutable" despite not apparently having a fucking clue what it actually means. lol.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[Maritz]

All EU nations have freedom of travel within them, not just France, you stupid cunt.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[Maritz]

We're talking about the real world here mate, not your cowardly, fearful, pathetic, paranoid head. I'm not afraid of muslims, because I'm not a pathetic cunt like you.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[Maritz]

He's right. "Neutral perspective" lol.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[Maritz]

Oh don't worry, now that you have efficiently contradicted him I'm sure he'll stop spouting that drivel.

Re:Editorializing in the title

[Maritz]

Nobody knows what the fuck you're on about, and it's probably because you're stupid. Thanks anyway.

Re:Truck of Peace comin' your way!

[Maritz]

Don't worry Ivan, you'll get another go in 5 years. You left the hack too late. Needs to be at least half a week or so before the vote. Good luck!

Re:Macron the sly french fox of all trades!

[Maritz]

Turns out "wikileaks has been duped" can mean just about anything you want it to mean. That's fucking amazing.

Does it have to be in bold for that to work?

Re:Sad day for Europe

[Maritz]

Yep. This election has one lesson in particular for the humans of planet earth: The French are not as stupid as the Americans. At least, not yet.

Macron

[eric_harris_76]

I'm sorry, but Macron doesn't sound like the name of the head of state of an important country. It sounds like the name of a robot on "Futurama".

(And don't get me started on the depressingly worsening sequence of nitwit-scoundrels who've worked in the Oval Office.)

Could be worse. Len Pen could have been defeated by Le Sword.

Re: At least, Putin is no sexist

[mi]

Emphasis added because what you said doesn't matter nearly as much as you think.

Trump is not a party to this debate. You can't refute, what I said, so you are trying to erect strawmen and attack them. Poorly.

Oh, and you post anonymously so as to keep your pathetic downmodding of my posts in effect. Pathetic...

Re: At least, Putin is no sexist

[mi]

1. incontrovertible, irrefutable, positive -- (impossible to deny or disprove; "incontrovertible proof of the defendant's innocence"; "proof positive"; "an irrefutable argument")

Describes the facts I listed quite well, thank you very much.

Re:Sad day for Europe

[mjwx]

Kebabs are pretty tasty. Lots of people like Kebabs. You would also if you tasted one, but its hard to taste food when your head is up your ass.

You can whine all you want about SJWs or political correctness, but there is nothing sensible about fascism. There is nothing sensible about ISIS either. Not all muslims are extremists and not all extremists are muslim. Those are very simple truths that you choose to refute.

One extremist begets another. And so on. At least the French are more aware of this than Americans.

Egalité, fraternité, liberté. Vive la France!

This,

The answer to extremism is not more extremism. That's like saying the answer to a fire is coal and petrol.

Rather more interesting, from the leak...

[Reziac]

...is this document, in French:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfr...

Translation to English (not cleaned up, just what the Big Goo spit out):

https://pastebin.com/zyk0yn79

Draw your own conclusions about who is really behind Macron.

Re:Because open borders have worked so well for th

[DaRyuujin]

I didn't realize a religion was an ethnicity.

Retard...

O rly? Oh man you tried to insult the wrong persons intelligence. Lemme give you a vocabulary lesson.

ethnic
[eth-nik]

1. pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

2. referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups.

3. being a member of an ethnic group, especially of a group that is a minority within a larger society

4. of, relating to, or characteristic of members of such a group.

5. belonging to or deriving from the cultural, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country

6. (of a human being) displaying characteristics, as in physical appearance, language, or accent, that can cause one to be identified by others as a member of a minority ethnic group:

7. Obsolete. pagan; heathen.

noun
8. a member of an ethnic group.


Care to revisit that retard statement? Because it sure does seem that by DEFINITION that people who share the same religion are considered an ethnic group.

You should probably at least look up the definition of a word before you call somebody a retard and claim they misused it, might make yourself out to be somebody who lacks intelligence themselves.