Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
le pen is going to win. lets be honest the french people are sick and tired of the current president
the don't want more people coming into france because of how far of a down turn they had lately.
Le Pen is looking out for the people of france leaving the EU would be a good step for them and reform like this
should happen in sweden for their own good.
(April 24, 2017 at 11:00 am)Isis Wrote: In a sense, yes, it has been working well for the EU, that's great and all, but that's only a fairly small amount of countries. We're talking worldwide open borders here and that is totally unrealistic. People aren't going to sit back and watch their country's being stripped of their sovereignty completely.
Before you say it, that isn't tribalistic and anyone who thinks so is a fool. As I said, you can be welcoming to immigrants but also support borders. Borders help keep out the troublemakers while still letting the law-abiding, hard-working folk in.
Keep out the troublemakers?
Tell me, what do you do with the troublemakers that are born in your country?
In a unified global "state", they'd get the same treatment they get nowadays... seems obvious.
(April 24, 2017 at 11:00 am)Isis Wrote: Let's just say, hypothetically, we were close to establishing a world government, what about the countries who don't want to join? Are you going to invade and annex them? Sanction them until they bow down and become part of your project? You can bet your ass many countries won't.
I know I'm not supposed to provide a viable solution to that scenario, but I'm sure far more qualified people would, at the time, present their options.
As for my opinion, the large "country" should focus on doing its best so that it presents itself as a very welcome partner.
Why would invasion or sanctioning be required? Such terminology only goes to show the tribal nature of how people think - war or withdrawal of resources as a way to force others to abide by "our" rules.
538 Gave Trump the highest chance of winning (@33% at the time of the election). The chances of a Brexit were similar, Ithink closer to 40%.
They say she has nowhere near the odds Trump or Brexit did, and her chances of winning are very, very, very low. And shrinking. The longer Trump is in office, the worse Le Pen has done.
I've heard some say a large terror attack might change that, but the recent shooting didn't even give her a bump. I think she's got all the support she's going to get. They came close in this first round, but that was 4 candidates going against each other. In head to head polls, Macron is 26 points ahead of Le Pen. That's nothing like the close polling that existed with Brexit or Trump/Clinton. The recent "upsets" have all been within the statistical margins of error that they know exist, so are not actually statistical upsets. If the trend holds, at the worst, Macron would win by 21%-ish.
April 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm (This post was last modified: April 24, 2017 at 12:44 pm by Isis.)
Back on to the topic at hand, I just can't see Le Pen winning. I think if the EU continues to go down the path it is, then a eurosceptic party will definitely win in the future but not right now. I would be very surprised if she wins, but I will just wait and see. Brexit and the US election has proved that we can't trust polls.
April 24, 2017 at 12:55 pm (This post was last modified: April 24, 2017 at 12:59 pm by pocaracas.
Edit Reason: Seems Isis removed some of her post... I've hiden the reply to that part.
)
(April 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Isis Wrote:
(April 24, 2017 at 11:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: Keep out the troublemakers?
Tell me, what do you do with the troublemakers that are born in your country?
In a unified global "state", they'd get the same treatment they get nowadays... seems obvious.
Don't kid yourself, the threat of foreign terrorism is very real. I understand that troublemakers are born here, but it is a ridiculous argument.
"Terrorists are here too! Abolish your borders!"
Literally nobody is saying that we should just halt immigration and seal the borders. This conversation is not going to get anywhere. You have your opinions, and I have mine. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about a world government all evening.
You're the one who brought up the terrorists.
I'm not saying it's an argument for the abolishment of borders.... it's just not an argument against it... or rather, it's a false argument.
It's scaremongering and.... again... fostering of the tribal mentality.
(April 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Isis Wrote:
(April 24, 2017 at 11:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: I know I'm not supposed to provide a viable solution to that scenario, but I'm sure far more qualified people would, at the time, present their options.
As for my opinion, the large "country" should focus on doing its best so that it presents itself as a very welcome partner.
Why would invasion or sanctioning be required? Such terminology only goes to show the tribal nature of how people think - war or withdrawal of resources as a way to force others to abide by "our" rules.
You really are a smug asshole at times, aren't you?
Yes, I am.
There are more ways than one to create a worldwide governing body. Surely the transition from our current situation to such a state will be filled with difficulties... and many will be due to misuse of power... but if the process starts, it's a mistake to then go back and break up a union.
(April 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Isis Wrote: Calling everyone tribalists while somehow thinking you're superior. The large country presenting itself as a "very welcome partner" is still no guarantee that other nations would sign up.
No, it's not.
Why would you suppose I said anything like that?
(April 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Isis Wrote: It sounds like a stepping stone to a totalitarian government to me. I am just thankful that it will never happen, the tide is changing. People want their sovereignty and that doesn't make them tribalists.
yeah... a worldwide totalitarian government!! of course, it won't have a constitution (or equivalent), nor some sort of regional representative bodies, nor anything that you may already find in any country, nowadays.... it'll be Mao's China all over... of course.
Scaremongering. That's what you're doing.
A country is just a large tribe. Tribalism - Nationalism... call it what you may... same thing!
(April 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Isis Wrote: Again, as I mentioned earlier, it sounds like an excellent idea in theory, though but it is unrealistic for it to work on a global basis.
Unrealistic on the short-to-mid time scale, yes.
On a long time scale, it's completely feasible.
(April 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm)Isis Wrote: Back on to the topic at hand, I just can't see Le Pen winning. I think if the EU continues to go down the path it is, then a eurosceptic party will definitely win in the future but not right now.
And what path is that that the EU is continuing to go down?
I'm done arguing with you about a world government. I think the EU is an undemocratic institution that has too much control over member states. It started off as a simple trading bloc and politicians are slowly trying to turn it into, you guessed it, the United States of Europe.
Ultimately, the European Union has become too big to fail, if that makes sense. I think it collapsing would have catastrophic effects on the world economy and that is why it desperately needs reforms. Looking back, it probably would have been best for the UK to stay in, so British voters and MEPs could at least try and address their concerns.
But, you know, democracy and all that. It's too late now. It now needs to convince member states to stay in a nice way not by threatening them like they have with the UK. It won't do anything to prevent members from leaving.
April 24, 2017 at 7:50 pm (This post was last modified: April 24, 2017 at 7:52 pm by dyresand.)
(April 24, 2017 at 1:05 pm)Isis Wrote: I'm done arguing with you about a world government. I think the EU is an undemocratic institution that has too much control over member states. It started off as a simple trading bloc and politicians are slowly trying to turn it into, you guessed it, the United States of Europe.
Ultimately, the European Union has become too big to fail, if that makes sense. I think it collapsing would have catastrophic effects on the world economy and that is why it desperately needs reforms. Looking back, it probably would have been best for the UK to stay in, so British voters and MEPs could at least try and address their concerns.
But, you know, democracy and all that. It's too late now. It now needs to convince member states to stay in a nice way not by threatening them like they have with the UK. It won't do anything to prevent members from leaving.
The EU is going to fall apart in time but recent issues being the refugees it's just speeding up the process of it collapsing.
All in all the EU as a experiment is a failure simply put Brussels couldn't get the UK to stay and in reality there is no benefits for the UK to stay.
that and the UK still is better off if anything after opting out.
April 24, 2017 at 8:24 pm (This post was last modified: April 24, 2017 at 8:28 pm by Pat Mustard.)
(April 24, 2017 at 10:40 am)vorlon13 Wrote: I don't see the French EU issue being a binary choice; stay or go.
How about the EU cut WAY back on the bloat, administrative redundancy, waste, administrative bloat, overhead, redundancy, administrative idiocy, redundancy, waste, and administrative bloat ???
A smooth running, efficient and taut EU might even get Britain back in the fold. If the EU was managed well enough leaving becomes unthinkable for the members, then the members won't think about leaving.
Sheeesh!! Is this so fucking hard to noodle out ??
Do you know how many people the EU employs? 24,500 directly and a further 9,000 on secondment. That is roughly comparable to the Irish civil service (which doesn't include employees of the HSE, An Garda Siochana, the Permanent Defence Forces, any of the semi-state companies or local authorities). Given the amount of work being done by EU institurions and bodies there is remarkably little bloat most of which is found in the CAP (and a large chunk of that is set to disappear in the next two years when the UK with its massive payments to large landowners exits).
The EU is, when you look at it, one of the most efficient govermental bodies around (and a far, far better thing than any private company [outside of small enetrprises] that I've ever looked at in terms of effectiveness).
(April 24, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Aroura Wrote: I care.
538 Gave Trump the highest chance of winning (@33% at the time of the election). The chances of a Brexit were similar, Ithink closer to 40%.
They say she has nowhere near the odds Trump or Brexit did, and her chances of winning are very, very, very low. And shrinking. The longer Trump is in office, the worse Le Pen has done.
I've heard some say a large terror attack might change that, but the recent shooting didn't even give her a bump. I think she's got all the support she's going to get. They came close in this first round, but that was 4 candidates going against each other. In head to head polls, Macron is 26 points ahead of Le Pen. That's nothing like the close polling that existed with Brexit or Trump/Clinton. The recent "upsets" have all been within the statistical margins of error that they know exist, so are not actually statistical upsets. If the trend holds, at the worst, Macron would win by 21%-ish.
Le Pen has never done well from terrorist attacks, because people begin to realise, a) the innefectiveness of her policies vis a vis terrorism, b) the sheer inability to implement even 10% of what she proposes, and c) the fact that the woman is herself a terrorist.
