Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

French Presidential Election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by kato View Post
    Gee, for some reason only British media (... across the board) carry news of those supposed riots. And they all use the same pictures that RT published first. For which RT simply reused pictures from actual riots yesterday.

    Also, this is Europe. It wouldn't be Europe if there wasn't rioting. We're not some pansies like across the pond who just moan about results.
    Your great grandparents didn't moan or riot and let 50 million people die. Their grandparents and great grandparents didn't even have a real vote and didn't riot or even moan about it and they just invaded France; twice. Both time it took the across the pond pansies to set things right.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      . Both time it took the across the pond pansies to set things right.
      Agreed in part on the 2nd world war not so much on the 1st......I mean you guys really do over egg what you did, How about what you didn't do????
      Last edited by Toby; 25 Apr 17,, 19:48.

      Comment


      • #33
        Speaking from my own personal experience I wish there was more 'resistance' when things are evidently proposed that are contrary to any democratic future. The 'Euromaidan' in December and early January in Ukraine was about a specific policy pledge that the then President had broken by not signing the EU agreement at Vilnius in November but his January 16 2014 'Dictatorship Laws' (as they became called) were beyond the pale for almost all people whether they agreed with the EU deal or not. Sic semper tyrannis or as an older saying has it "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad".

        Comment


        • #34
          Can't see effective resistence until representative democracy is abolished and a more direct form is introduced.Protests are very inefficient and with unpredictible results.
          Those who know don't speak
          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Your great grandparents didn't moan or riot and let 50 million people die. Their grandparents and great grandparents didn't even have a real vote and didn't riot or even moan about it and they just invaded France; twice. Both time it took the across the pond pansies to set things right.
            My great-grandparents were a bit too busy being among the 50 million - and it wasn't those from across the pond that freed the camp my great-grandfather was in, it was Djugashwili's troupe. That's for one side of the family at least; on the other they were kinda born around the time we got occupied by the North back in '67. Their great-grandparents? Well, on on side they were kinda rioting in that thing back in '48, on the other they were with France when good ole' Bonaparte was still around.
            Last edited by kato; 24 Apr 17,, 06:18.

            Comment


            • #36
              Ahhh yes , boney , another gobshite who got a slap from the English ( Sharpey n ssm harper , lol ) and the dook o boots . ,,,,,,,,c,mon lepenn and the errrrrrr crazies ,fingers xed gal , beat macron , hahhhhh , an ex banker who will fit right in with the corrupt EU and its policies .
              Last edited by tankie; 24 Apr 17,, 20:31.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by snapper View Post
                Speaking from my own personal experience I wish there was more 'resistance' when things are evidently proposed that are contrary to any democratic future. The 'Euromaidan' in December and early January in Ukraine was about a specific policy pledge that the then President had broken by not signing the EU agreement at Vilnius in November but his January 16 2014 'Dictatorship Laws' (as they became called) were beyond the pale for almost all people whether they agreed with the EU deal or not. Sic semper tyrannis or as an older saying has it "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad".
                Many anti-democratic features are so popular and so obvious they are considered essential features of democracy. Like, say, an independent judiciary!
                "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                Comment


                • #38
                  I do not myself regard an independent judiciary and equality for all under the laws made by elected representatives as 'anti democratic'.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Final results for the first round with all votes counted:

                    Macron - 8657326 votes - 24.01%
                    Le Pen - 7679493 votes - 21.30%
                    Fillon - 7213797 votes - 20.01%
                    Melenchon - 7060885 votes - 19.58%
                    Hamon - 2291565 votes - 6.36%
                    Dupont-Aignan - 1695186 votes - 4.70%
                    Lassalle - 435365 votes - 1.21%
                    Poutou - 394582 votes - 1.09%
                    Asselineau - 332588 votes - 0.92%
                    Arthaud - 232428 votes - 0.64%
                    Cheminade - 65598 votes - 0.18%

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by snapper View Post
                      I do not myself regard an independent judiciary and equality for all under the laws made by elected representatives as 'anti democratic'.
                      That's pretty much my point, isn't it? Also, what does "equality under the law" have to do with "democracy"? You are marrying together concepts that do not go together. Athenians had juries of hundreds of people, no appeal systems, and were done in a day. They were very democratic: their legal system was nothing like ours.

                      If someone used that legal system today, it'd be called "anti-democratic" since it threatens yadda yadda yadda.

                      Here's wiki:
                      The system showed a marked anti-professionalism. No judges presided over the courts nor did anyone give legal direction to the jurors; magistrates had only an administrative function and were laymen. Most of the annual magistracies at Athens could only be held once in a lifetime. There were no lawyers as such; litigants acted solely in their capacity as citizens.
                      How about elected representatives? And, are you kidding me, you hire people to work for the government? Absolutely un-democratic! Athens chose many administrators by lot.
                      Last edited by GVChamp; 24 Apr 17,, 22:52.
                      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                        That's pretty much my point, isn't it? Also, what does "equality under the law" have to do with "democracy"? You are marrying together concepts that do not go together. Athenians had juries of hundreds of people, no appeal systems, and were done in a day. They were very democratic: their legal system was nothing like ours.

                        If someone used that legal system today, it'd be called "anti-democratic" since it threatens yadda yadda yadda.

                        Here's wiki:


                        How about elected representatives? And, are you kidding me, you hire people to work for the government? Absolutely un-democratic! Athens chose many administrators by lot.
                        What your referring to is the tyranny of the majority. Since the majority can be easily swayed by sudden passions, the creation of unjustified and unfounded fears by actors with spurious motives, who then exploit those fears, or by making the majority believe lies, character assassinations, or even one big lie passed via combining it with a kernel of truth - it is a relatively simple and straightforward matter to get a population to act upon sudden passions, fears, and lies - and the end result is something that is most definitely not democratic.

                        It's a form of tyranny - a tyranny instituted by a small number of actors who were able to manipulate a majority of the population and circumvent what democracy is ideally supposed to be. Many tyrannical governments have been instituted by exploiting populations in democracies that did not have the proper safeguards or checks and balances instituted. I can point to many historical examples - Greek and Roman history is replete with them - the highest profile recent case would be that of the wildly gesticulating, Chaplin-mustachioed Bohemian corporal in 1933.
                        Last edited by Ironduke; 25 Apr 17,, 09:15.
                        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Ironduke makes my point far more eloquently than I could. I would just add some examples of 'legal murder' (and robbery) in Rome in what was called "proscriptions" the first of which occurred under Sulla (then a legal dictator) who needing money to pay his troops (and settle them) simply targeted, murdered and confiscated the properties and persons of the richest citizens. Anthony and Octavian (later Augustus) did a similar form of proscription during the second Triumvirate - thus ended Cicero who had annoyed Anthony with his 'Philippics'. This is not justice and democracy requires justice and equality under the law.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

                            The "tyranny of the majority" is an argument for stasis and control, an attempt by the ruling class to counter the servile class's reassertion of its own interests.
                            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                            Leibniz

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              What your referring to is the tyranny of the majority. Since the majority can be easily swayed by sudden passions, the creation of unjustified and unfounded fears by actors with spurious motives, who then exploit those fears, or by making the majority believe lies, character assassinations, or even one big lie passed via combining it with a kernel of truth - it is a relatively simple and straightforward matter to get a population to act upon sudden passions, fears, and lies - and the end result is something that is most definitely not democratic.

                              It's a form of tyranny - a tyranny instituted by a small number of actors who were able to manipulate a majority of the population and circumvent what democracy is ideally supposed to be. Many tyrannical governments have been instituted by exploiting populations in democracies that did not have the proper safeguards or checks and balances instituted. I can point to many historical examples - Greek and Roman history is replete with them - the highest profile recent case would be that of the wildly gesticulating, Chaplin-mustachioed Bohemian corporal in 1933.
                              And I can point you to Switzerland. Works for centuries. Also, no minimum wage. :-)
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Toby View Post
                                Agreed in part on the 2nd world war not so much on the 1st......I mean you guys really do over egg what you did, How about what you didn't do????
                                Didn't do... lose millions of lives. It wasn't our war too fight. You had 2.5 years and 80% of the global economic output either directly controlled or via trade with the US and other non-European nations and couldn't put the Germans to bed. American troops only took part in a few battles, but their presence and ever increasing foot print along with the blockade helped turn the tide inside the enemies head.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X