You know Gilrandir. You can speak on how to make an apple pie and he will blame Putin for the sugar coating...
Printable View
You know Gilrandir. You can speak on how to make an apple pie and he will blame Putin for the sugar coating...
I gave this quote, but you seem to need repeating. Here you go:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
His Advisor on international Affairs of the George kuzmanović (Djordje Kuzmanovic) said on March 28, the Association “Franco-Russian dialogue” that the post of President of the Republic Jean-Luc Mélenchon would have established “a warm and (…) a partnership with Vladimir Putin or any other President elected by Russians”.
If all the sources I referred to are polluted, perhaps the problem is not with the sources, but with the object they talk about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Sugar coating for an apple-pie? ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
French Apple traditionally has a thin glaze (think very thin royal icing) on the top of the pie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
"His Advisor on international Affairs of the George kuzmanović (Djordje Kuzmanovic) said on March 28, the Association “Franco-Russian dialogue” that the post of President of the Republic Jean-Luc Mélenchon would have established “a warm and (…) a partnership with Vladimir Putin or any other President elected by Russians”." Right.
"Jean-Luc Melenchon wants to build relations of cooperation on science, culture and peace with Russia, whoever is its leader," Kuzmanovic said on his Twitter. This is the real one... Sorry... Took me some time and efforts to find it, but there is nothing I wouldn't do for an Organist...
“Un oubli”, explique celui qui a notamment été mis en cause en début d’année par le journaliste Nicolas Hénin dans son livre La France russe (éd. Fayard, 19 euros). Présenté comme la “muse de Mélenchon sur la question russe, ce dernier était situé sur ‘un axe rouge-brun’. Des “allégations complètement fausses” que l’intéressé dément formellement .» Il dément mais Besse Desmoulières répète quand même. Il s’agit pourtant de la reprise d’un ragot d’extrême droite sur fond de délit de sale nom. Monsieur Kuzmanovic est français, et l’origine serbe de ses parents ne donne pas le droit de le stigmatiser. Il n’est en rien ma « muse russe », expression dont les sous-entendus sont assez clairs pour me révulser de dégoût pour son auteure. Ce que les pécores qui pérorent ne peuvent savoir en lisant les vieilles fiches des collègues, c’est que Djordje a servi dans l’armée française sous drapeau ONU en Afghanistan. Suggérer qu’il soit un « rouge brun » est une infamie gratuitement énoncée sans le début d’un argument." Jean Luc Mélenchon in http://melenchon.fr/2016/11/14/le-mo...nchon-bashing/
That is the perfect illustration of what I said: France 24 repeating an "information" published by "Le Monde"... Information without any basis.
If you want, I give you Mélenchon's site, then you go to research the name of his "adviser" and you see the result. Deal?
http://melenchon.fr/
Here, you can find what Mélenchon really said:"Nous Français, n'avons rien à faire dans une histoire pareille, nous n'avons rien à faire à encourager les provocations contre les Russes, cela dit sans sympathie pour le gouvernement russe", "We French, have nothing to do in such story, we have nothing to do in encouraging provocations against Russia, this said with no sympathy for the Russian Government"
https://www.marianne.net/politique/j...ne-et-la-syrie
Now what's the use of trying to show something to a person who can't read it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Do you enjoy urging non-French speakers to find something on a french site?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The fact that you identify with the man makes me cautious in accepting this quote at a face value. Can the quote you give exclude others of a different nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Generally, I believe similar opinions that come from different quarters more that one opinion of an emotionally invested individual. I see no ground to suspect all sources (especially the British ones - I referred to the Guardian) in attempt to blacken a foreign politician. And I greatly doubt your claim that these sources neither understand anything in French politics nor have someone among their staff who do.
It was about time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Of course he does, who doesn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Melenchon has a very awkward leniency towards Maduro and the Castros. But no tenderness for Putin or North Korea, never. I'm not Brenus, maybe you can trust me. He just said Russia is an important actor and as such shall not be treated lightly. Isn't it what you want to make us understand too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Those sources have repeatedly proved unable to understand their own country's politics. Their staffs all come from the same brain-factories. Understanding there is still strenght in western communism is just out of question: they MUST support everything that looks a bit like good old Stalin, you know... And have councellors making the link with the Fascist. Because commies always seek for a Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact, you know...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
"Generally, I believe similar opinions that come from different quarters more that one opinion of an emotionally invested individual." That is why I gave you 2 possibilities: Marianne is not known to be nice towards Mélenchon. Founder is more Bayrou (Center Right, so Rightist)...
This matter winds itself ever in new riddles, as Faramir used to say. Who's Marianne, who's Founder and is Bayrou an adjective to have degrees of comparison?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
It is not about trusting or distrusting Brenus. It is about trusting or distrusting a person who supports/ed a politician and is now trying to prove those, who criticize him, wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
"Being not treated lightly" means "taking it seriously". It is quite different from "establishing a warm realtionship", isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan
"Being not treated lightly" means "taking it seriously". It is quite different from "establishing a warm realtionship", isn't it?
Well done, you spotted it!
"It is about trusting or distrusting a person who supports/ed a politician and is now trying to prove those, who criticize him, wrong." They don't criticise him, they bluntly lied. Telling that someone (well, his "adviser") said something and it is not what he said, is a lie.
Disagree with someone is normal. Using lie is not.
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_(magazine) , the english article is very basic but marianne is the only independant mainstream news source. Center-right, indeed, but reliable and republican enough to have me, authoritarian left winger, reading it for fifteen years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_KahnQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The one who made mistakes and aknowledges it. The only one among french media.
You nail it... Almost an adjective. "Central". "Somehow useful". "honest to foolishness". "crappy 'friends' ". "almost convincing". "A whole lotta scars between the shoulder plates". Bayrou... oh my, this last one looks very likely very soon, again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Macron continues his triumphant march:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tary-elections
Yeap. 52% abstention... What a triumph.
Btw, first Foreign Politician received by him: Vladimir Putin, and at Versailles... But he told him off. Happy?
If one looks at the number of parliamentary seats his party obtained it is a triumph for a totally new party which came into being half a year (?) ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I heard that the last political leader received at Versailles was Gaddafi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Gaddafi was received at the Elysee Palace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I think it is the 1st time a foreign Head of State was received at Versailles.
"If one looks at the number of parliamentary seats his party obtained it is a triumph for a totally new party which came into being half a year (?) ago." You are right. No opposition, so only solution will be in the streets.
Refusing to vote is not an act of dissatisfaction. It's a vote for the majority electorate.
If I refuse to go in a shop, I am not buying all what is in the shop...Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
No. It is a sign political landscape is not reflecting the voters reality, or that the elections process is not any more adapted to reflect it. Macron had something like 20 % of the vote during the 1st round.
He will have an absolute majority if things go as predicted. So 80% of the voters won't be represented. That is why, not only in France, abstention is the new democracies' plague...
And in France, for historical reason due to the 4th Republic, the electoral system gives advantage to the victors. Roughly, if you win all constituencies with 50% (of the valid votes, as abstention or "blank" vote is not recognised) plus 1 voice, you will have 100 % of the parliament, so 49.99% of the voters are not represented. Then you can claim you have a full mandate to do whatever you want. Then the only option left for the 49.99 % to be heard is demonstrations in streets.
What Macron is now preparing under the smoke screen of anti-terrorism is to integrate the "emergency measures" in the common laws, banning demonstration against his policies de facto...
His problem is French don't care too much about laws they disagree with. So it will end by dead demonstrators as police will have to use more and more violent systems of controlling the demonstrations, because they is just not enough of anti-riot police officers thanks to the cuts imposed by the EU...
Of course, demonstrators will rise to the challenge, then we will have dead in the police forces, media (controlled by Macron's sponsors) will show how savage the workers defending their life against the savagery of Macron Policies are...
Facebook and youtube will react to governmental propaganda...
And then... All hells will open...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...130221268.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Perhaps trying to add an air of importance to Putin's visit, Russian TV channel RT shared the following curious detail: "Receptions in Versailles are very rare. For example, Nicolas Sarkozy received a guest at the royal palace only once. That was the famous visit of Muammar Gaddafi in 2007."
What about your claim-to-fame reality check?
If they abstained they don't want/don't care to be represented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
So they don't want to change things legally by voting (aka abstention) and will start rioting? Is it what you denounced so vehemently about Ukrainians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"What about your claim-to-fame reality check?" I did check.:laugh4:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-fell-out.html
You can't resist, can you?:laugh4:
"If they abstained they don't want/don't care to be represented." In your simple world only.
"Is it what you denounced so vehemently about Ukrainians?" No. What I denounced about Ukrainians is the Coup (which was probably illegal) and the fact that demonstrations (legal) were hijacked by Nazi (who are probably legal in Ukraine)...
"So they don't want to change things legally by voting (aka abstention) and will start rioting?" Demonstrations are legal in France, as a legal mean to express opinions. Perhaps for a linguist you should check the definition of "legal"
Don't forget 1871... :creep:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
:laugh4:Don't think they were invited...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Historically, I wonder if Germany was the only country proclaiming its birth in someone else Palace?
Sure they left a mess which took two world wars to clean...
Even if 90% of the people choose 'none of the above', someone has to win. An election is nothing like shopping at a store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The most important time for the people to get involved with choosing their leadership is not in the first wave, or the second wave. It's when the parties pick their candidates. I don't know how primaries are done in France, but if the party leadership is giving you duds it's time to reform the process on how party leadership is chosen
Chosing leadership lol, you don't understand the French
But they were received in a way...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
That's actually an interesting question. I can't think of any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Surely that is a joke, since the whole mess was created by imperialist and/or monarchic aspirations in the first place and I find it hard to believe you would defend such sentiments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Evidently, we speak of different visits by Gaddafi. You refer to the one in 2011, I mean the one in 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Are FN nazis? Are they legal in France? The same with Svoboda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The latter were so nazi that they let the hijacked power out of their hands in presidential and parliamentary elections and allowed a Jew to be appointed prime minister.
You spoke of anti-riot police policemen, so I assumed you were hinting at possible riots which are illegal. Or are they legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
"Evidently, we speak of different visits by Gaddafi. You refer to the one in 2011, I mean the one in 2007." Here we go, mystery elucidated...
"Are FN nazis? Are they legal in France? The same with Svoboda." Some are. Officially, Nazism is forbidden in France. And FN didn't (yet) organised a Coup. BTW, do you know that the Front National was the name of a Communist Freedom Fighter Group in France? Unlike in Ukraine, the FN doesn't show it is a Nazi party, or fascist...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ch_Resistance)
"You spoke of anti-riot police" If I would have said Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité, I am not sure that someone would have understood to what I was referring to... Riots are just a possible extension of demonstrations. Not legal, but still a possibility, reason why Anti-Riot police is deployed... Same for emergency services in hospital, and firefighters, doesn't make accidents and fires legal...
"But they were received in a way..." Yeah, in a way...
" I find it hard to believe you would defend such sentiments." Where did I did that? If I did, it was not intentional...
"would", because you didn't, but it was a potential conclusion one could have drawn. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
The same in Ukraine. Or do you believe it is otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Neither did Svoboda (or any party). "The coup" was the result of the acting president escaping from the country. And after "the coup" both the presidential and parliamentary elections were held which were recognized by everyone outside Ukraine, including Russia. If you mean the Maidan movement that caused the escape, then it wasn't organized by any party, Svoboda including.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Like Right Sector, which had a jewish platoon and a synagogue built near the fronlines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
And the insignia of the 2 SS Division.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
BTW, dividing your units by religions is Nazi's orientated ideology
For what left of your remark, we argued before so, let's not re-start this. Just go back wherever it was...
You mean nazis had Catholic, Orthodox, Buddhist, Moslem etc regiments? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
By race or nationality, yes. Mostly volunteer SS, though.
Buddhist, I doubt, but others, yes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
It is different from what you claimed (e.i. by religion), but in case of race or nationality: this tradition goes back to Roman army (perhaps even before - too lazy to check, Macedoneans in particular):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Roman_armyQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Under Augustus (ruled 30 BC – 14 AD), the army consisted of legions, eventually auxilia and also numeri.
Numeri were allied native (or "barbarian") units from outside the Empire who fought alongside the regular forces on a mercenary basis. These were led by their own aristocrats and equipped in traditional fashion.
One may also remember the tradition of having Scottish units in the service of French kings (see Quentin Durward by Walter Scott) or Swiss guards at papal court. Even French foreign legion may be considered such a unit. Were/are all those nazi practices?
The source, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Hm, macron got a majority.
All the power, the responsibility, the blame, is his.
I heard that he brought to the parliament a considerable number of people totally new to politics. Perhaps electorate are tired of seeing the same faces in the parliament, so it is a response to a demand for changing the ruling elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
All Ospey -Men at Arms series about Foreign Volunteers and Waffen SS would be a good start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
https://ospreypublishing.com/store/m...ks/men-at-arms
The Buddhist ones beeing Kalmyk former soviet POWs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
As I said, forming ETHNIC units was a tradition long before nazis. You claimed nazis divided units by RELIGION, that is among Nazi troops there should have been 1st Catholic Panzer battalion, 3rd Protestant Luftwaffe squadron, 45th Orthodox Waffen SS division, 34th Islamic Marine regiment, etc. Were there any?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Just do your research...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
To draw a line:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
1) contrary to your claims there were no Nazi units divided according to the religion;
2) having ethnic units was a practice started long before Nazis, so there is no call to associate it with a Nazi one;
3) the existence of a Jewish unit within Right Sector doesn't prove its being Nazi.
:shrug:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...(1st_Croatian)
Do your research
I'll help you: https://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Legio.../dp/0912138297
You mean like Attachment 19714?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I don't understand why I must do MY research to sustain YOUR claim. Judging from what you linked, it is still unsustained on the two points I mentioned:
1. Existence of Nazi units based on the RELIGION (not on the ethnicity) of the members.
2. Having ethnic units was a practice started by Nazis or employed exclusively by Nazis.
You failed to prove either.
You definitely didn't do your research... Not that I am really surprise. Clue : The SS Handzar is Muslim...
Ethnicity of Handzar divison, Yugoslav...
See, 2 birds in one stone...
Btw, even the book YOU show prove the Legion is not based on ethnicity...:laugh4:
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_W...(1st_Croatian)
Composed of Bosnian Muslims (ethnic Bosniaks) with some Catholic Croat soldiers and mostly German and Yugoslav Volksdeutsche (ethnic German) officers and non-commissioned officers, it took an oath of allegiance to both Adolf Hitler and the Croatian leader Ante Pavelić.
Muslim, you say...
Carry on with weasling out attempts.
BTW, perhaps Sarmatian will explain to you that Yugoslav is not an ethnicity.
Did you read it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I can't say I'm an expert on Nazi army organization, but the idea of units divided by religion sounds very strange for the Nazis. Religion was often an afterthought for them or something they used to further their goals. Their propaganda rarely seems to have touched on the religious side of the jews, mostly on ethnic and other "differences". They only arranged themselves with the Christian churches since it seemed necessary to keep the support of the population, AFAIK they had no further interest in it beyond that. If they ever did such a thing it was probably out of some necessity such as unit cohesion or esprit de corps. :shrug:
As you may have noticed, Brenus failed to produce any evidence to support his claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeap, that is why it better to read specialised books than wiki :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The Volkdeutche were incorporated in the Heer or the SS btw.
The uncle of an Alsatian friend was in 1 SS-Panzer-Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler because he was tall enough to do so. And to be sure that him or his friends didn't escape, the Nazi build the Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp in France.
Handzar and Kama were form of Muslim. Do you really think Catholic Croats would have wear the Muslin Fez? Just look at the pictures, not a big deal...
One is not opposed to the other...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Himmler was fascinated by Religions. Hitler was indifferent. But he received the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on the insistence of Himmler, who himself wanted to create Mulsim Units, therefore the Hanzar and the Kama, but as well the Skandenberg for Albanian.
Remember that Serbs, Croats and Muslim speak the same language... So the choice to create a Serbian (Orthodox) unit (White Eagle) and Muslim units and to have the regular Croatian Army (plus Ustase) was not based on ethnicity, but on religions.
Detail: The last unit which try to take the Tractor factory (I think) in Stalingrad was a Croatian Unit.
I don't see how it bears on non-existant religion-based units of Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Who said that guys on the pictures were Croats? As the wiki (which you despise so much) claims, there were people of differet confessions in the unit in question. I have no doubt that the ones in the picture were Muslims. BUT! There were people of OTHER confessions within it. Which rules out religious foundations of the said unit. I would rather say that they were united in it because they were all citizens of Yugoslavia before the war so they could easily understand each other, cooperate with each other and be commanded by people who spoke their language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
According to your logics, if Nazis had ethnic units then any other armies who have/had such units must be Nazi ones. Then all people fascinated by religions must be Nazis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Trying to create is not the same as creating. And Albanian is ethnicity, not a religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
:dizzy2: It was based on the same language as you have correctly observed, since religions were different, and the language was common.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Again an indication of ETHNICALLY based units which has nothing to do with religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Generally, I don't understand your obsession with ethnic composition of some Nazi units. This practice existed long before nazis and exists now. Why, even the so beloved by you Soviets had such units:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia...tvian_Riflemen
So the Soviets were Nazis?
Don't also conflate the issues: Soviet units were designated according to republic(s) of origin or formation, more like the United States National Guard in concept than the SS conglomerations. They had some ethnic units, especially of non-Slavs (outside Central Asia) or non-Soviet Slavs, but the main structure followed a different principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
What we should conclude is that while it's not strictly incorrect to say the SS formed units along religious lines, this is misleading in the context of the well-known SS policy of forming units around perceived national origin or identity, and how exactly this would go on to be adapted both to real circumstances in Eastern Europe and to people whom the Nazis thought of as "less European". Sometimes these unit constituents overlapped heavily with religion because sometimes ethnicity and religion overlap heavily in general.
In the context of contemporary Ukraine or whatever, you two should probably be debating the more relevant point of the motivations and reasoning involved in agglomerating non-mainstream citizens into special formations, or at least distinct ones, as opposed to distributing them throughout the larger military apparatus as with the main body of recruits.
OMG! National Guard organized along Nazi lines!Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
On a serious note, I would like to see the proofs that the Soviet army units were designated according to republic of formation. In my experience, it is quite the opposite. All Soviet national policy was aimed at creating "a new national identity - a Soviet man". Consequently, all ethnic differences tended to be downplayed in favor of a common tie between all people of the USSR - their Soviet citizenship.
In the armed forces this policy found expression in sending conscripts from different national republics to military units far away from their home and mixing them together thoroughly. The result of it was one of the two1 plagues with which the Soviet army was ridden - zemlyachestvo (a loose translation is "association of fellow countrymen"). The essence of the phenomenon is forming groups united by ethnicity or - largely - by regions. It was usually Slavs vs Caucasians vs Baltics vs Middle Asians. The groups were unfriendly (to put it mildly) to each other.
The example of Latvian red riflemen was a relic of the Russian empire and thus isn't symptomatic of the Soviet army. Perhaps at earlier stages (say in 1917-1922) some examples of such units could be found, but by 1930s this practice was totally abandoned and when the Red army became the Soviet army it was unthinkable.
1 The second plague being dedovshchina - humiliating treatment of juniors.
That is why one can't speak of Nazi units formed ON THE BASIS of religion. It may have been appended to ethnicity, but never the main ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
We should, but Brenus sees Nazis everywhere in Ukraine, so he tries to bring up the point whenever he notices similar practices disregarding discrepancies or logical considerations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
"I don't see how it bears on non-existant religion-based units of Nazis.": Because it contradicted your beloved wiki. The Volksdeutsche from Yugoslavia were integrated in German Units, as my friend's uncle had. Not in a regional "ethnic" one.
The problem is you have not a clue of what you speak about. Nazism evaluated due the pressure of the high costs in lives on the eastern Front.
Nazism was based on division of religion. To be a Jew is to belonged to a religion. Now, yes, the Nazi were not coherent, and if you just discovered this, well, nothing I can do. Hitler referred himself as a Christian, and explain why the Jews as murderers of the Christ had to be exterminated. Now, if you want to check this, do it yourself, I don't want cookies in my computer linked with Nazi sites. If you don't mind, do it.
I noticed you have a very narrow kind of logic. Regarding Nazism, it doesn't work. As your Ukrainian Nazis prove it, in having a Jewish unit.
Then surely a religious one? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Your usual argument when your reality checks fail you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I expect all this to be true. But it has nothing to do with "religion based units" of the Nazis which you never proved to have existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
:laugh4: I expect you cleanse the history of your recent internet connections if they contain the word "nazi". I wonder how you keep these four letters on your keyboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
If the event doesn't fit into your picture of the world you just brush it aside? Logic can't work piecemeal. It is universal. So if it works in other cases, it must do in the issue in question as well. Can you imagine racist owners forming an NBA team exclusively of black players? If the owners are like that they are consistent in their drafting policies (you may read on Lazio - a football team from Italy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
And, judging from what you have said regarding nazi sites, your logic is at least not broader.
... and building a synagogue and being financed by the head jew of Ukraine - Kolomoisky. How cunning Ukrainian nazis are. Perhaps they are nazi jews? Russian media have invented a name for such people - Banderite kikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
To sum up another discussion of ours:
You failed to prove your point, so you resorted to your usual tactics of playing the man not the ball. But "having no clue" and "narrow logic" can't win you an argument.
1. Cutting number of legislators; 2. EU comments, proportional representation, and ending the state of emergency; 3. Opposition; 4. Self-presentation and leadership style/philosophy
Org commentary?
Quote:
Macron seeks to cut number of France MPs by a third
The French president says he has a broad mandate after sweeping wins in presidential and parliamentary elections this year.
If his proposed changes were not passed by parliament within a year, he said he would take the decision to a referendum.
In his 90-minute speech, the 39-year-old leader vowed to return a "collective dignity" to France.
"In the past, procedures have taken preference over results, rules over initiative, living off the public purse over fairness," he said.
The proposed cuts would reduce the number of National Assembly members from 577 to 385, and the numbers of Senate members from 348 to 232.
He also said:
- The European Union had "lost its way" in the past 10 years amid growing bureaucracy - a solution was a "new generation of leaders"
- France's electoral system would be changed to allow more proportional representation, so more voices would be heard at government level
- France's state of emergency, put in place after terror attacks, would be removed by the autumn
Mr Macron is not the first president to convene a session at Versailles, the grand 17th Century palace outside Paris built by Louis XIV, "the Sun King".
...
Three parties, including Jean-Luc Mélénchon's far-left France Unbowed, boycotted the event. Mr Mélénchon accused Mr Macron of "crossing a line with the pharaonic aspect of his presidential monarchy".
The front page of Monday's Libération showed an image of Mr Macron as Jupiter, the god of gods, holding forked lightning. Expressing concern, the centre-left newspaper said the session in Versailles was the latest manifestation of the president's authoritarian nature.
...
The style of the Macron presidency is becoming clearer. He thinks that Charles de Gaulle, founder of the Fifth Republic, got it right: France's head of state should be distant, surrounded by symbolism and mystique, above the fray.
That is why he decided to call this exceptional joint session of the Senate and the National Assembly - to set out to lawmakers from his position of supreme authority what he expects of them in the years to come.
Of course it's convenient that the session took place in Versailles, a place of monarchical associations like no other.
Emmanuel Macron feels the presidency was debased by his predecessors, who either interfered too much in the detail of policy, or pandered to the media.
He wants to stop that, but critics are already saying he is getting above himself - and assuming powers he should not have.
I would suport this one... for Ukraine. Here the same opinions are voiced giving the shrinking number of population as a reason. When the number of legislators was adopted the population of Ukraine was about 52 mln. Now it is 10 mln less, and some regions of Ukraine are annexed. Thus the number of legislators is to be reduced proportionately. I don't know what was Macron's argument, but if France's population number shows a similar tendency (compared to what it was when the number of legislators was adopted) then his idea sounds reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It is a motion adopted in a lot of democracies, including the UK (and we have a growing population). It is a concept around saving money by having less representatives. Also arguably, less people to "influence" whilst in government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
It can be done only if you have a total proportional representation. If not, I can't see the mechanism on how it can be achieved...
Macron is one of the worst elected French President, due to abstention...
So, he knows he had little time to push his XIX century's "reform" and try the Louis the XIV was.
To choose the Louvre the Versailles is quite symbolic. The residence of the French Kings...
However, the "Versaillais" in the French Psyche are the people who crushed the "Commune de Paris" in 1871...
As he knows he has the legality but not the legitimacy he will go "en force" to pass his ideological program, which is in fact the following of Holland, to whom Macron was the Minister of Finances...
I don't know how less Representatives can be more democracy...
Seriously, the Louvre?? Banks are king I guess
Excepting special cases like Ukraine reducing the number of MPs is a measure designed to reduce the accountability of the MPs (by giving them a larger electorate each) and "saving" money which in practice means the same pot of money spread between fewer politicians. In the UK it was also actually motivated by the fact that the Chamber was deliberately designed to only seat about 600 when the House of Commons was already larger than that. This was intended to prevent debate dragging on, but now people will be able to nap in the chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
:no: Not again. Again ruminations on the best/worst politician. :no: Evaluation is always subjective. Anyway, one can't gauge the quality of a president (who hasn't started to rule, in fact) by the number of votes he received/didn't receive. If we go this way, the best presidents will be the ones of Turkmenistan and North Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Brenus, the long game here is that France has to go in some sort of direction to stave off the right wing rhetoric. No more beating around the bush. People need action right now, so even if Macron takes a strong man approach, I would rather have his moderate, pro-EU strongman rather than the pro-Russian, radical Le Pen direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
He is NOT a moderate... He is one of the reasons why Le Pen raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Not vice versa?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Hmmm, difficult to answer...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Macron was elected because he was confronted against Le Pen. Polls (but we know they are not precise sciences) are showing that 61 % of the voters for Macron voted in fact against Le Pen. A goat would have elected against Le Pen. That is why Le Pen is useful for the ruling parties... So they thought. But plans went wrong for them.
However, it is Macron's policies (he was the minister of finances during Holland's government) that created the conditions of the abstention (more than 53 % for the 2nd round for the Parliament) and the protest vote going to Le Pen as vote for the one who annoyed the "Elites".
In post # 385 you spoke of the reasons why Le Pen "raised", not of the reasons of Macron being elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
In my view, the chief reason of the Le Pen's "raise" was not the rivals she faced, but the whole situation in the EU and the inlux of refugees in particular.
As for Macron voters voting against Le Pen - wasn't it the same story at the previous elections?
Refugees: Yes and no. Le Pen certainly played on this, but it wasn't really at the centre of the debates. A bit like when T. May in UK tried to bank on Brexit and Corbyn succeeded to play on social grounds. She didn't succeeded to convince voters, the last debate vs Macron was a disaster for her. The problem she has (still) is the origin of her party, created by former French SS and Germany's Vichy collaborators. She is un-electable at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The French elections saw the destruction of the two main movements that were the "governmental" ones, the Socialist Party (was socialist only by name due a slow evolution to kind of social-democracy) and the Les Républicains, dreamed by Sarkozy and was an alliances of "conservatives" movements. They were basically offering the same programs and were not really different one from the other...
Macron succeeded thanks to a good communication to present himself as "new" but if you look at the figures he represents actually around 20 % of the voter so, does the FN and 2 other movements.
The reason why Le Pen raised was the perception (partially accurate) that the political landscape was blocked, so the FN became the party carrying the anger of the ones wishing to blow-up the system in one hand, and to give a warning (knowing that Le Pen will be never elected) to this establishment...
And yes, the vote against Le Pen was the reason of the vote for Macron. Always has been, reason why Le Pen family is so precious to the the men in power, as it blocked any debate. "Us or the fascists" is something familiar in the French political landscape, except it is wearing thin... As shown in the elections, the trap doesn't work any more for few reasons too long to explain, but roughly coming from a change in the speeches from Le Pen, and a really development of poverty and unemployment in France...
The speech itself was apparently in the palace of Versailles because the law says that if the President adresses both chambers of the French parliament, it has to be there. You can question wether it was necessary at all, but you can't really fault him for picking the location :shrug:
He could have avoided to do it. It was not the purpose of this kind of meeting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
One of his nicknames is Toutankmacron now...
lol that one is pretty good
Faint echoes of the presidential campaign:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50712826
Isn't he the guy Brenus rooted for?
Well, quite a thing.
Far-left, lmao...