France

Hehe.  I assume you're being facetious?

How badly do you need to oppose membership in the EU to be able to support leaving it on the Alt-Right's terms?

And what was Le Pen's economic agenda?  Nationalized barbershops?  What were those 11% endorsing?

They must be so envious of Brexit right now.  Look at all of the UK, partying still, and lording it over them.

"Ya, that's right France, we're soon going to be negotiating our own trade agreements, and we don't have to let greasy foreigners live in our country any more!!!"

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/07/emmanu...

Neoliberal Investment Banker Macron Defeats Openly Xenophobic & Racist Le Pen in French Election

quote:

YASSER LOUATI: Hi, Amy. The victory of Emmanuel Macron is—you know, tastes very bitter to the French voters, because they were pushed towards the voting booth with the National Front knife under their throat—either fascism or neoliberalism. And, of course, Emmanuel Macron got 65 percent of the votes. But compared to what Jacques Chirac got in 2002 against Marine Le Pen’s father in 2002, that was 82 percent. So, the victory is really way below what was accomplished 15 years ago. In the latest poll from the political department of the Sciences Po, Paris, which is, you know, one of our notorious political science schools, 60 percent of Emmanuel Macron’s voters do not ideate with his program but just voted because they had no other alternative. The abstention rate got a rate, 16 million people. And Marine Le Pen actually got beyond the 7 million stated by Juan, but actually 11 million people, which means identity politics and xenophobic and racist rhetoric is here to stay. On top of it—excuse me—on top of it, a latest poll shows that 61 percent of the French do not want Emmanuel Macron to have a majority in Parliament, which means that a war is now being waged in order to gain a majority in Parliament. And Emmanuel Macron himself will be isolated and will depend on the game of alliances. That’s for the figures of his victory.

As for the speech of last night, to tell you the truth, I was listening in complete dismay, because he spoke about the right of the oppressed, yet we never heard Emmanuel Macron stand up against the current state of emergency, which is still in effect. When he was asked about Palestine, he said standing for the right of Palestinians to have an independent state will be, quote, "taking sides." We haven’t heard him speak about the nine wars in which France is being engaged. And the list goes on. So, what happened last night is only a one-night relief from Marine Le Pen accessing power, but a battle has just begun today for the conquest of Parliament.

The victory of Emmanuel Macron is—you know, tastes very bitter to the French voters, because they were pushed towards the voting booth with the National Front knife under their throat—either fascism or neoliberalism. 

So, it would seem that in a presidential system, "making every vote count" doesn't neccessarily do much to give voters a progressive choice. Because, in order to prevent someone from winning with a ridiculously small plurality, you need to have a second round of voting. And, this time, once the vote went to the second round, it was a foregone conclusion that the only options would be the aformentioned fascist and neoliberal.  

And even if the second vote had been between, say, a centrist and a leftist, the fact would still remain that the majority of voters would have been forced to support a candidate they didn't like. 

NorthReport wrote:

http://www.straight.com/news/906571/good-news-climate-emmanuel-macron-wi...

Even after a lacklustre campaign that ended with a calamitous performance in the final TV debate,

Hahahaha xD

It is sadly not surprising to see that immediately after rejecting an openly racist candidate, the French people are being branded as racists. One might eventually wonder how far they must go to purge themselves of that label, if such is even possible.

I think it's a red herring to get sidetracked with statements like "France still identif[ies] itself as a white country" and the like. Obviously, 65% of the voters did not endorse such a view, at least as far as their electoral choice went. 

What is significant, I think, is that within a decade and a half, the National Front's share of the second-round vote has more than doubled. Whether that's because there are now more racists in France, or the Front has done a better job of convincing people it's not really racist, or people are just desperate for any opposition to the EU, or Macron is no Chirac, or whatever, I don't know, but it seems to me something well worth a sober examination. 

..yet another quote from louati. it's not over for le pen.

The way our government works here in France is that once the president is elected, he nominates the prime minister. But the prime minister can only come from the majority within the National Assembly, which means if tomorrow, for example, the National Assembly, you know, is a majority under the left or either opposing party, Emmanuel Macron will have no other choice but to nominate a prime minister from an opposing political party. And that’s exactly the opportunity for those who want to confront our political system or our political elite to register as independent candidates, because, according to a latest analysis from an academic, we might see up to five groups in the National Assembly of France.

And Marine Le Pen managed to also make her party so acceptable that people from the mainstream right party have actually colluded with her and were ready to build alliances, which means, with the collapse of the Socialist Party on the left and the Republican Party on the right, Marine Le Pen will definitely get new supporters, make alliances with people fleeing mostly the Republican Party, because they ideate with her agenda on identity politics, anti-European, anti-immigration, and, of course, this populist rhetoric to get more credibility, saying, "The establishment has failed you, but I will stand with you and defend you against them."

josh wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

How first round voters voted.  Or didn't:

I'm most fascinated by the 11% of first round Mélenchon voters who chose Le Pen in round two.  Trying to elect the Alt-Right seems like a pretty severe and ill-chosen way to tell the world you're disappointed.

I'm surprised isn't wasn't more since both candidates are anti-EU and both oppose the neo-liberal economic agenda.

I think that for voters who want to see active protests against the president the Trump win might have given them the idea. Elect Le Pen and see hundreds of thousands in the streets, elect Macron and people might get lulled back to sleep.

Why the hack failed in France:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/world/europe/macron-hacking-attack-fr...

A canadian connection:

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/05/09/opinion/french-election-scand...

Quote:

I think that for voters who want to see active protests against the president the Trump win might have given them the idea. Elect Le Pen and see hundreds of thousands in the streets, elect Macron and people might get lulled back to sleep.

OK, so that adds a third potential explanation for people voting Le Pen.

1.  "We want our own 'Frexit' from the EU, especially since the Brits seem so overjoyed with theirs!"

2.  "Things have to get worse before they can get better, and hey, maybe while the electorate is protesting runaway anti-immigrant racism, they'll also demand state-owned barbershops.  Worth a shot, right?"

3.  "We're just xenophobic racists and proto-fascists who move their lips while reading"

Which is all fine, I suppose, but I suspect that when it comes to one ninth of Mélenchon voters who did a sea change and supported Le Pen we'll go with #1 or #2, but for some beer-drinking, flag waving, government-cynical schlub, we'll cheerfully assume #3.

Quote:

You're right, but all of the scapegoats also trace back to Clinton or her party's rhetoric. Wiki leaks was only a problem because Clinton had unethical behaviour to hide.

And Trump had none?  When did Saint Julian of Assange publish his foibles?

Quote:

Had Trump been a less vulgar man, he would have been insulated from those attacks.

Are you suggesting that he must be a less vulgar man?  Because it certainly looks like he was, in fact, insulated from those attacks.  He was recorded on camera talking about how his wealth meant he could "grab them by the pussy"... but he didn't exactly suffer from having blurted that out.

Quote:

Likewise, had Clinton been a more ethical woman she would have been insulated from the attacks against her.

She was "more ethical" enough to not boast about grabbing women by the pussy.

But I suppose she still suffered from choosing to be married to a serial killer like Bill, and of course she had the nukes pointed at Moscow, and as we all know she lied about having Ebola, which is why she's deceased now.

Ya, the U.S. of A. totally dodged a bullet on that one.  It seemed like they were going to choose some hawkish wingnut who'd pick a fight with any skinny country with glasses, but fortunately they got the reserved and reflective an honest Mr. Trump.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

1.  "We want our own 'Frexit' from the EU, especially since the Brits seem so overjoyed with theirs!"

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most of the Brits who voted for Brexit ARE overjoyed about it. Most of the shock and horror I've seen has been coming from people who voted Remain to begin with. Some of them have adopted the rhetorical trope of claiming to speak on behalf of Leave voters who now supposedly regret their vote("Believe me, if people had understood the issues, they would have voted the other way!"), but I don't get the impression that there are a whole lotta Leave voters actually saying that.

I could be wrong, but I do think it's safe to say, at the very least, that most of the people I've personally heard lamenting the results were always anti-Brexit anyway.  

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

You're right, but all of the scapegoats also trace back to Clinton or her party's rhetoric. Wiki leaks was only a problem because Clinton had unethical behaviour to hide.

And Trump had none?  When did Saint Julian of Assange publish his foibles?

Quote:

Had Trump been a less vulgar man, he would have been insulated from those attacks.

Are you suggesting that he must be a less vulgar man?  Because it certainly looks like he was, in fact, insulated from those attacks.  He was recorded on camera talking about how his wealth meant he could "grab them by the pussy"... but he didn't exactly suffer from having blurted that out.

That's a bizarre statement. All of the polls at the time showed a sharp drop in support between the release of that footage and the second debate. It could be argued that he didn't suffer enough, since he still won, but do you honestly think similar accusations would have held the same weight against, for example, Jeb Bush?

Quote:

Quote:

Likewise, had Clinton been a more ethical woman she would have been insulated from the attacks against her.

She was "more ethical" enough to not boast about grabbing women by the pussy.

No, instead she boasted about destroying Libya and sparking the beginning of the refugee crisis. Libya used to be the richest, safest country in Africa with near first-world living conditions. It was in the top quartile of countries to live in the world. Now it's one of the most dangerous places in the world, especially for women, and it is so devastated and lawless that there are open-air slave markets. Instead she boasted about how she would nuke Iran. Instead she wiped her FOIA-circumventing home server, "with a cloth or something?" I could go on but it's all been done before.

I'm not saying Trump is ethical by any stretch. But compared with other accusations against Trump there wasn't a whole lot of coverage of his lack of ethics. Trump U and the architect he stiffed were the biggest ones, and those probably weren't even in his top 10 scandals because for him everything is a scandal, even his wife wearing a white dress (how racist!). He was primarily attacked on his attitude towards women, minorities, the disabled, and basically anyone who wasn't a straight white man. So I compared Clinton's ethics (what she was most attacked on) with Trump's vulgarity and mistreatment of women (what he was most attacked on), because the entire point is that in both cases they were only vulnerable to said attacks because of choices they made. Clinton blaming "Saint Julian of Assange," or Comey, or Putin, or whoever for her loss is dishonest in the same way that a bank robber who gets sent to jail would be dishonest if he said it was the security camera maker's fault that he was in jail. It's not, it's their fault for robbing the bank. It doesn't become not their fault because some other bank robber got away with it.

So just to be crystal clear here, I'm not condoning or endorsing Trump's behaviour or ethics, nor am I even saying he was the better candidate. I'm simply saying that Clinton is not an innocent victim of other people's choices.

Quote:

But I suppose she still suffered from choosing to be married to a serial killer like Bill,

It's actually pretty offensive that you would minimize the credible  sexual assault and rape accusations against him by exaggerating in this fashion, but I guess it's okay for Clinton to do because he's on the good team.

Quote:

and of course she had the nukes pointed at Moscow, and as we all know she lied about having Ebola, which is why she's deceased now.

Wow, a strawman argument. I've never seen one of those before.

Quote:

Ya, the U.S. of A. totally dodged a bullet on that one.  It seemed like they were going to choose some hawkish wingnut who'd pick a fight with any skinny country with glasses, but fortunately they got the reserved and reflective an honest Mr. Trump.

Not what I said. All I said was that Clinton's excuses are poor because even if it could be proven that she would have won if not for x y or z factor, the fact is that she is still responsible for creating the conditions for x y or z to happen. I even took a shot at Trump to draw a comparison to show how Trump making a similar claim if he lost would have been equally bullshit, and you know that he would have. So don't make it sound like I'm calling Trump anything remotely close to honest.

'We'll Blow Everything Up!': French Factory Workers Threaten Bosses if Demands Not Met

https://youtu.be/c_QGONaYXqQ

"Car workers threaten to blow up their factory if their financial demands aren't met..."

All Power To The Banks! The Winners-Take All Regime of Emmanuel Macron   -   by Diana Johnstone

https://t.co/FZJ6UoL8sw

"...If people has voted on the issues, the majority would never have elected a man representing the trans-Atlantic elite totally committed to 'globalization', using whatever is left of the power of national governments to weaken them still further, turning over decision-making to 'the markets' - that is, to international capital, managed by the major banks and financial institutions, notably those located in the United States, such as Goldman Sachs.

The significance of this election is so widely misrepresented that clarification requires a fairly thorough explanation..."

June 11 and 18.

NDPP wrote:

Informant Claude Hermant Implicates French State in Charlie Hebdo Attacks

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/22/herm-m22.html

"Claude Hermant, a police informant arrested in the case of the January 7, 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, has implicated the French state in the preparation of the attack...

surprise surprise

So it's being claimed the French state orchestrated a false flag operation with the goal of justifying increasing state power and surveillance as a result of the attack? 

Just repeating that makes me feel like a 9/11 "truther"...

What astonishes me is anyone using wsws as a credible news source... 

Look at what that crew wrote about Québec solidaire: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/20/queb-m20.html

That crew seem to be to the right of the Mtl Gazette and The Suburban. 

During a visit to Egletons training school in central France on Wednesday, Macron said "some people, instead of screwing everything up, they would better see whether they can get some jobs."

He was referring to workers worried about job losses at a nearby factory who organized a demonstration on the sidelines of his visit. And, unusually for him, he used vulgar language.

Many politicians from the right and left expressed anger at the comments Thursday, considering them disrespectful to the unemployed.

Macron's popularity rate has plunged as his government starts to implement labor reforms. He is increasingly criticized as the "president of the rich."

http://www.startribune.com/french-president-s-vulgar-comment-on-jobless-causes-outcry/449557273/

Who Governs the World?

https://mronline.org/2018/03/17/who-governs-the-world/

"French elite brays for war in Syria amid US-UK threats against Russia...'As French President Emmanuel Macron pushes for the draft, NATO is creating conditions for wars in which large draftee armies could be deployed. And as May's threats show, events are moving towards not only war in the Middle East, but also a clash with a nuclear-armed opponent, Russia. Behind the rush to judgment in this as-yet unclarified case [Skripal UK poisoning], powerful factions of the European ruling class are working out how to mount a military escalation aimed at Russia, Turkey and Syria..."

Time for another false flag chemical attack in Syria?

Brest frisky dolphin sparks French swimming ban

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45319658

Battlefield Paris: Police Hit Protesters With Tear Gas As Massive Fuel Rallies Grip France (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/9j6s

"Saturday marks the second week in a row that protests have been held in the French capital and across the country. French President Emmanuel Maron's policies, including his handling of the economic situation have triggered multiple protests  in France. The French leader also faced plummeting approval ratings  amid social discontent with his 'reforms'..."

France Shaken By Mass Protests

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/11/19/pers-n19.html

"...Broad opposition to existing social conditions is mounting. 'For the average Frenchman who works and gets a wage, it is getting really hard...We are proud to pay our taxes, but this is too much,' one protester told BFM TV. He added that he is opposing problems that accumulated 'over decades' to cries of 'Macron resign' from protesters holding signs saying 'No to the president of the rich.' 

Three quarters of French people support the protests amid anger at austerity, Macron's cuts to pensions, and his decision to tax workers while slashing the Tax on Wealth (ISF) on millionaires..."