As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[EU]ropean democracies thread

11213151718

Posts

  • ChanusChanus Benny Harvey -RIP-Registered User regular
    Echo wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Also, it's not like Carbon energy doesn't have its own waste extracts.

    some even radioactive!

    Isn't coal pretty high up on net radioactivity?

    quantity i dunno but my understanding is the waste sludge or whatever is significantly measurable

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited January 6
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Besides the enviromental concerns, here's a question:

    On Ukraine's position, staring down a Russia facing a massive demographic crisis and hence, very desperate to grab whatever territory they can take to prevent their collapse, would you trust Germany to 100% have your back, given that, as mentioned, they depend on Russian gas to keep the lights on?

    Because I wouldn't. And such thing is reflected on the EU as a whole not being taken seriously as a NATO partner against Russia. The German voter and ruling coalition are free to choose whatever energy policy they wish. But given the way that shapes their foreign policy, they can't choose what the other countries decide to do about it.

    I wouldn't expect Germany to have Ukraine's back at all, cause Ukraine is not in the NATO.

    Ok. Team America running the show against Russian agression it is. Don't complain later.
    Biden already promised Putin that the US wouldn't interfere if Russia invades Ukraine. Which is a reasonable enough position; if you told any American that it was time to go fight Russia in Ukraine they would justifiably laugh (although I do think it is funny to imagine how Democrats would have reacted if Trump made a similar pledge). So I don't think the US is running much of a show here. Not really sure Washington can run shows anymore to be frank. I guess they still have sanctions.

    Plus, given Team America's history of success, Washington running the show against Russian aggression would presumably lead to the Kremlin being relocated to Paris in five years or so...

    Kaputa on
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Assuming we could muster up the political will to properly recycle and reuse Nuclear Waste and create a proper storage space for it, by the time the unrecyclable remains ever became an actual storage/space issue we'll either all be dead or we'll be able to put it on the moon until we find another use for it.

    This has been the line on storing nuclear waste pretty much from the very beginning

    "Just store it temporarily until FUTURE SOCIETY solves the problem, no biggie"

    Hasn't worked out so far.

    Except it has, we already have developed wildly more efficient ways to reuse/recycle waste from the 70s.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Help me Marie Kondo my life and buy my old stuff
    Lord_AsmodeusLanlaorn
  • GiantGeek2020GiantGeek2020 Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Besides the enviromental concerns, here's a question:

    On Ukraine's position, staring down a Russia facing a massive demographic crisis and hence, very desperate to grab whatever territory they can take to prevent their collapse, would you trust Germany to 100% have your back, given that, as mentioned, they depend on Russian gas to keep the lights on?

    Because I wouldn't. And such thing is reflected on the EU as a whole not being taken seriously as a NATO partner against Russia. The German voter and ruling coalition are free to choose whatever energy policy they wish. But given the way that shapes their foreign policy, they can't choose what the other countries decide to do about it.

    I wouldn't expect Germany to have Ukraine's back at all, cause Ukraine is not in the NATO.

    Ok. Team America running the show against Russian agression it is. Don't complain later.
    Biden already promised Putin that the US wouldn't interfere if Russia invades Ukraine. Which is reasonable enough position; if you told any American that it was time to go fight Russia in Ukraine they would justifiably laugh (although I do think it is funny to imagine how Democrats would have reacted if Trump made a similar pledge). So I don't think the US is running much of a show here. Not really sure Washington can run shows anymore to be frank. I guess they still have sanctions.

    Plus, given Team America's history of success, Washington running the show against Russian aggression would presumably lead to the Kremlin being relocated to Paris in five years or so...

    Oh I'm fairly sure we can supply enough guns to Ukraine to make Afghanistan look lightly armed.
    And can you source that Biden pledge of non-involvement? I think I remember something about it but I can't remember details.

    Phoenix-DSmrtnik
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Besides the enviromental concerns, here's a question:

    On Ukraine's position, staring down a Russia facing a massive demographic crisis and hence, very desperate to grab whatever territory they can take to prevent their collapse, would you trust Germany to 100% have your back, given that, as mentioned, they depend on Russian gas to keep the lights on?

    Because I wouldn't. And such thing is reflected on the EU as a whole not being taken seriously as a NATO partner against Russia. The German voter and ruling coalition are free to choose whatever energy policy they wish. But given the way that shapes their foreign policy, they can't choose what the other countries decide to do about it.

    I wouldn't expect Germany to have Ukraine's back at all, cause Ukraine is not in the NATO.

    Ok. Team America running the show against Russian agression it is. Don't complain later.
    StarZapper wrote: »
    I thought Europe actually had some proper nuclear waste storage sites, unlike the US? I confess I don't know that much about it, but it seems like Germany really shot themselves in the foot when they shut down their nuclear plants. Like strategically it seems like the worst thing they could've done, shut down their own green power and rely on their geopolitical enemy for essential energy supply. I don't get it.

    Everything that I've read is the German public going from somewhat anti-nuclear to strongly anti-nuclear after Fukushima and being willing to vote out parliament members that were pro-nuclear, so the Merkel admin, that was kinda losing popularity back then, got cold feet.

    Yes, the country with one of the lowest risks of earthquakes on the planet and with a coastline not directly exposed to oceans is the one afraid of a second Fukushima. Bunch of contemptible NIMBY morons.
    One in three wild boars are still radioactive in Germany. It's more like NIMARBY.

    autono-wally, erotibot300honovereCornucopiist
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited January 6
    Kaputa wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Besides the enviromental concerns, here's a question:

    On Ukraine's position, staring down a Russia facing a massive demographic crisis and hence, very desperate to grab whatever territory they can take to prevent their collapse, would you trust Germany to 100% have your back, given that, as mentioned, they depend on Russian gas to keep the lights on?

    Because I wouldn't. And such thing is reflected on the EU as a whole not being taken seriously as a NATO partner against Russia. The German voter and ruling coalition are free to choose whatever energy policy they wish. But given the way that shapes their foreign policy, they can't choose what the other countries decide to do about it.

    I wouldn't expect Germany to have Ukraine's back at all, cause Ukraine is not in the NATO.

    Ok. Team America running the show against Russian agression it is. Don't complain later.
    Biden already promised Putin that the US wouldn't interfere if Russia invades Ukraine. Which is reasonable enough position; if you told any American that it was time to go fight Russia in Ukraine they would justifiably laugh (although I do think it is funny to imagine how Democrats would have reacted if Trump made a similar pledge). So I don't think the US is running much of a show here. Not really sure Washington can run shows anymore to be frank. I guess they still have sanctions.

    Plus, given Team America's history of success, Washington running the show against Russian aggression would presumably lead to the Kremlin being relocated to Paris in five years or so...

    Oh I'm fairly sure we can supply enough guns to Ukraine to make Afghanistan look lightly armed.
    And can you source that Biden pledge of non-involvement? I think I remember something about it but I can't remember details.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-says-u-s-will-not-unilaterally-send-troops-defend-n1285619

    Basically he said the US won't send troops but would enact more sanctions.

    Kaputa on
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited January 6
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Besides the enviromental concerns, here's a question:

    On Ukraine's position, staring down a Russia facing a massive demographic crisis and hence, very desperate to grab whatever territory they can take to prevent their collapse, would you trust Germany to 100% have your back, given that, as mentioned, they depend on Russian gas to keep the lights on?

    Because I wouldn't. And such thing is reflected on the EU as a whole not being taken seriously as a NATO partner against Russia. The German voter and ruling coalition are free to choose whatever energy policy they wish. But given the way that shapes their foreign policy, they can't choose what the other countries decide to do about it.

    I wouldn't expect Germany to have Ukraine's back at all, cause Ukraine is not in the NATO.

    Ok. Team America running the show against Russian agression it is. Don't complain later.
    StarZapper wrote: »
    I thought Europe actually had some proper nuclear waste storage sites, unlike the US? I confess I don't know that much about it, but it seems like Germany really shot themselves in the foot when they shut down their nuclear plants. Like strategically it seems like the worst thing they could've done, shut down their own green power and rely on their geopolitical enemy for essential energy supply. I don't get it.

    Everything that I've read is the German public going from somewhat anti-nuclear to strongly anti-nuclear after Fukushima and being willing to vote out parliament members that were pro-nuclear, so the Merkel admin, that was kinda losing popularity back then, got cold feet.

    Yes, the country with one of the lowest risks of earthquakes on the planet and with a coastline not directly exposed to oceans is the one afraid of a second Fukushima. Bunch of contemptible NIMBY morons.
    One in three wild boars are still radioactive in Germany. It's more like NIMARBY.

    How radioactive, and in what way. Like this bears clarification. Guarapari Beach, a popular tourist destination in Brazil is regularly far more radioactive than most locations currently in Chernobyl outside of like, the actual direct location of the accident itself. When you say "X is radioactive" people assume that means standing near it is going to give you cancer but there's a wide range of background radiations you can be exposed to depending on where you live. And it's never 0.

    Lord_Asmodeus on
    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Besides the enviromental concerns, here's a question:

    On Ukraine's position, staring down a Russia facing a massive demographic crisis and hence, very desperate to grab whatever territory they can take to prevent their collapse, would you trust Germany to 100% have your back, given that, as mentioned, they depend on Russian gas to keep the lights on?

    Because I wouldn't. And such thing is reflected on the EU as a whole not being taken seriously as a NATO partner against Russia. The German voter and ruling coalition are free to choose whatever energy policy they wish. But given the way that shapes their foreign policy, they can't choose what the other countries decide to do about it.

    I wouldn't expect Germany to have Ukraine's back at all, cause Ukraine is not in the NATO.

    Ok. Team America running the show against Russian agression it is. Don't complain later.
    StarZapper wrote: »
    I thought Europe actually had some proper nuclear waste storage sites, unlike the US? I confess I don't know that much about it, but it seems like Germany really shot themselves in the foot when they shut down their nuclear plants. Like strategically it seems like the worst thing they could've done, shut down their own green power and rely on their geopolitical enemy for essential energy supply. I don't get it.

    Everything that I've read is the German public going from somewhat anti-nuclear to strongly anti-nuclear after Fukushima and being willing to vote out parliament members that were pro-nuclear, so the Merkel admin, that was kinda losing popularity back then, got cold feet.

    Yes, the country with one of the lowest risks of earthquakes on the planet and with a coastline not directly exposed to oceans is the one afraid of a second Fukushima. Bunch of contemptible NIMBY morons.
    One in three wild boars are still radioactive in Germany. It's more like NIMARBY.

    How radioactive, and in what way. Like this bears clarification. Guarapari Beach, a popular tourist destination in Brazil is regularly far more radioactive than most locations currently in Chernobyl outside of like, the actual direct location of the accident itself. When you say "X is radioactive" people assume that means standing near it is going to give you cancer but there's a wide range of background radiations you can be exposed to depending on where you live. And it's never 0.
    Enough to be "unfit for human consumption", it seems.

  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    So. One in three wild boar consume enough radioactively absorbent plants and fungus to be deemed unhealthy to eat, and this is likely to remain the case for some decades.

    Well since it's been put that way, the German people's sudden desire to shift away from Nuclear Power Plants that would never have faced the kind of natural disasters that lead to Fukushima and are literally incapable of melting down like Chernobyl, in exchange for expanding their usage of coal and natural gas Power Plants which each pump hundreds or thousands of tons of toxic pollutants into the air everyone breathes every day, including mercury and the radioactive waste byproducts of burning carbonates, and yoking their foreign and domestic policy to the whims of an aggressive and hostile foreign state

    makes total sense.

    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
    TryCatcherFiendishrabbitCornucopiistLanlaornQanamiladytumshryke
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited January 6
    8000 people are calculated to have died in germany from chernobyl fallout alone. Still birth and birth mutation rates were higher for a few years, too.

    literally incapable of melting down like Chernobyl

    Please. I actually support nuclear energy but don't downplay its risks. A reactor that 'can't ever have an accident' just didn't have the right sequence of events happen.

    So nuclear plants should never be run for profit, because profit will always go first. If you run it properly, and calculate the hundreds of billions of euros waste storage will cost, suddenly renewables become a lot more viable.

    Currently the nuclear plants are usually "subsidized" heavily (additionally to the actual subsidies) by making the future pay the lion share for waste disposal and dismantling of the plant when its service life is over.

    autono-wally, erotibot300 on
    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    CornucopiistFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudElendil
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    If you run it properly, and calculate the hundreds of billions of euros waste storage will cost, suddenly renewables become a lot more viable.
    The problem with that is that renewables are not replacing nuclear, carbon emitters are.

    Lord_AsmodeusStarZapperFencingsaxTryCatcherSmrtnikMayabirdshrykeBrainleech
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular

    mrondeau wrote: »
    If you run it properly, and calculate the hundreds of billions of euros waste storage will cost, suddenly renewables become a lot more viable.
    The problem with that is that renewables are not replacing nuclear, carbon emitters are.

    And if is not Russian gas, is lignite coal, that has it's own share of problems, and hasn't exactly been phased out either:
    Ten years ago, Germany promised to phase out nuclear power. And Chancellor Angela Merkel got the nickname the climate chancellor. But Germany is the largest miner of lignite coal, one of the dirtiest and cheapest fossil fuels. It's responsible for a fifth of Germany's carbon emissions. And as NPR's Rob Schmitz found out, old villages are still being bulldozed to make way for expanding coal mines.
    This is the Garzweiler mine, and it keeps getting bigger. It's one of three massive open-pit coal mines in Germany's state of North Rhine-Westphalia along the Dutch border where lignite coal is mined, a dirty coal responsible for a fifth of Germany's carbon emissions. Nearly 50 villages in this region have been evacuated and destroyed for the ever-expanding mines.

  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Besides the enviromental concerns, here's a question:

    On Ukraine's position, staring down a Russia facing a massive demographic crisis and hence, very desperate to grab whatever territory they can take to prevent their collapse, would you trust Germany to 100% have your back, given that, as mentioned, they depend on Russian gas to keep the lights on?

    Because I wouldn't. And such thing is reflected on the EU as a whole not being taken seriously as a NATO partner against Russia. The German voter and ruling coalition are free to choose whatever energy policy they wish. But given the way that shapes their foreign policy, they can't choose what the other countries decide to do about it.

    I wouldn't expect Germany to have Ukraine's back at all, cause Ukraine is not in the NATO.

    Ok. Team America running the show against Russian agression it is. Don't complain later.
    Biden already promised Putin that the US wouldn't interfere if Russia invades Ukraine. Which is reasonable enough position; if you told any American that it was time to go fight Russia in Ukraine they would justifiably laugh (although I do think it is funny to imagine how Democrats would have reacted if Trump made a similar pledge). So I don't think the US is running much of a show here. Not really sure Washington can run shows anymore to be frank. I guess they still have sanctions.

    Plus, given Team America's history of success, Washington running the show against Russian aggression would presumably lead to the Kremlin being relocated to Paris in five years or so...

    Oh I'm fairly sure we can supply enough guns to Ukraine to make Afghanistan look lightly armed.
    And can you source that Biden pledge of non-involvement? I think I remember something about it but I can't remember details.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-says-u-s-will-not-unilaterally-send-troops-defend-n1285619

    Basically he said the US won't send troops but would enact more sanctions.

    Idk, he said "unilaterally", which to me seems to kick the ball into NATOs court. Which given that any large US built up in Ukraine would have to go through Romania or Poland first seems like the smart plan.

    Ukraine is also sadly paying the price for not Joining NATO sooner. Russia can get mad about the former Warsaw Pact switching sides but really, their own actions and history cause it.

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Besides the enviromental concerns, here's a question:

    On Ukraine's position, staring down a Russia facing a massive demographic crisis and hence, very desperate to grab whatever territory they can take to prevent their collapse, would you trust Germany to 100% have your back, given that, as mentioned, they depend on Russian gas to keep the lights on?

    Because I wouldn't. And such thing is reflected on the EU as a whole not being taken seriously as a NATO partner against Russia. The German voter and ruling coalition are free to choose whatever energy policy they wish. But given the way that shapes their foreign policy, they can't choose what the other countries decide to do about it.

    I wouldn't expect Germany to have Ukraine's back at all, cause Ukraine is not in the NATO.

    Ok. Team America running the show against Russian agression it is. Don't complain later.
    Biden already promised Putin that the US wouldn't interfere if Russia invades Ukraine. Which is reasonable enough position; if you told any American that it was time to go fight Russia in Ukraine they would justifiably laugh (although I do think it is funny to imagine how Democrats would have reacted if Trump made a similar pledge). So I don't think the US is running much of a show here. Not really sure Washington can run shows anymore to be frank. I guess they still have sanctions.

    Plus, given Team America's history of success, Washington running the show against Russian aggression would presumably lead to the Kremlin being relocated to Paris in five years or so...

    Oh I'm fairly sure we can supply enough guns to Ukraine to make Afghanistan look lightly armed.
    And can you source that Biden pledge of non-involvement? I think I remember something about it but I can't remember details.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-says-u-s-will-not-unilaterally-send-troops-defend-n1285619

    Basically he said the US won't send troops but would enact more sanctions.

    Idk, he said "unilaterally", which to me seems to kick the ball into NATOs court. Which given that any large US built up in Ukraine would have to go through Romania or Poland first seems like the smart plan.

    Ukraine is also sadly paying the price for not Joining NATO sooner. Russia can get mad about the former Warsaw Pact switching sides but really, their own actions and history cause it.
    It does rhetorically kick the ball into NATO's court, but the initial reason I brought it up was to argue against the idea that Germany's (or NATO's) reluctance to pursue a more confrontational policy toward Russia in the context of Ukraine meant that the US would counter a Russian move against Ukraine in their stead. If Biden is saying the US won't do anything on its own and that it's up to NATO, and if NATO, or at least most of NATO, aren't inclined to directly aid Ukraine, then, well...

    In any case, hopefully Russia will not invade Ukraine.

    GiantGeek2020
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    Ah I misunderstood.

    Frankly I don't see Russia invading. I think they love making Western media freak out and talk about war, making them look like Warmongers.

    I also think the Russian General Staff gain a lot knowledge on how to amass large numbers of troops quickly if needed.

    Basically, I think what they are doing serves their geopolitical needs to keeping Ukraine out of NATO, flexing their muscles, and making everyone look crazy when the war they said Russia would start doesn't happen.

    Maybe they hope to lure the West into a "Boy cries wolf" scenario and actually invade once people stop giving massive Russian troops build ups front page headlines. I really hope not.

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    I don't necessarily think Russia is aiming for a wholesale conquest of Ukraine, but a more limited invasion/territory grab doesn't sound implausible to me. I mean it wouldn't be the first time.

    StarZapper
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    I do wonder what will break first with this current crisis. The economic heart is the energy prices, the overall energy price us 26% higher than a year ago, and the short term gas price is 400% higher. It's doubling inflation, and squeezing citizens and companies.

    High electricity factories are already closing (NL has 1 aluminum plant for instance) as well as greenhouses changing their vegetables to lower warmth ones or just waiting with planting because they'd be operating at net loss.

    The things that could happen are a deal with Russia, more pumping up gas which is highly controversial in NL, delaying work on some nuclear stations past the winter in Bel/Fra, delay the closing of nuclear stations in germany, reopening/loosening environmental rules on coal stations...

    All of these have significant mid term political and environmental effects but this choke can't last either.

    Earlier in the thread there was some talk about Germanies adversity to Nuclear. I'm hardly an expert but I do know that the antinuclear left rose earlier and more powerful in Ger than elsewhere. There were massive protests as far back as 1973, long before Chernobyl. It's a core tenet of the Green party that nuclear is Unsafe, and since they are now in power for the first time ever you'd expect them to never step back an inch. Their base would howl at the betrayal.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • CornucopiistCornucopiist Registered User regular
    In the end the ball is entirely in Putin's court. If he wants to be reasonable, everyone walks away unscathed.
    The signs are that Putin is going to push for maximum brinkmanship, but really there is zero chance of him getting what he wants (Ukraine banned from Nato accession, limits on NATO operations in NATO members). And it's clear that Russian diplomats know this- no-one expects Putin to walk away with a win.
    Which means Putin has to either give up or follow up with an invasion of Ukraine. Which will destroy their economy- at the moment, including fossil exports, they have 3 times the GDP of Belgium. Shutting down one pipeline that is not yet carrying gas won't hurt them much. But following this winter's fun and games you'll see a much more sustained effort in the EU to shut out Russia, and over time that could lop off 10-30% of the Russian Economy without knockon effects.
    However, giving up will suit him fine. Failing at achieving his goals and then playing the bigger man and not invading Ukraine, a country already brimming with fascist anti-Russian militia, in the middle of winter, will set him up for a lot less body-bags (not popular anywhere) and a continued dolchstoss myth to riff on re: treacherous NATO.
    Moreover, it achieves him throwing his weight around as if Russia is not a midget, and military power projection is still a thing to be proud of that makes up for ten years of life expectancy.
    And as if that is what nation states are about: not the voluntary and democratic implementation of a social contract (which would require a functioning state) but the patriotic populace, defined by culture and territory, defended from the insidious other by a kleptocracy.

    GiantGeek2020Commander Zoom
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    There are accusations by a former senior official Spain’s National Police Corps that the 2017 Barcelona terrorist attacks were either organized by or allowed to happen by the Spanish National Intelligence Service (CNI) to spook Catalonians before their independence referendum.

    It did come out three years ago that the mastermind of the terrorist attacks was a CNI informant up to the attacks. It does seem very suspicious, and it's not like intelligence agencies around the world haven't been doing this sort of shit nonstop since their invention.

    BlackDragon480GiantGeek2020
  • CornucopiistCornucopiist Registered User regular
    edited January 31
    So, France. The Presidential elections. I've spoken about how Macron basically does not need to do any campaigning because in the end it will be either him or someone more to the right than him, and the left-wing voters, despite having been betrayed by Macron, will step up and vote for Macron so they won't get Far Right Le Pen or even Arch-Conservative Pecresse as a president.
    Macron hasn't even declared his candidacy. Which forces every other candidate to mudsling each other rather than the favorite.
    On the right side, Le Pen is under attack from Zemmour, who is more xenophobic than pretty much any other European politician you might have heard of- that's cool, he's a professional 'polemist'. i.e. a talking head. Zemmour has a way with the ladies, not just at a personal level by having an affair with his aide before even being elected (slightly scandalous) but also politically by poaching Le Pen's niece Marine. Le Pen, who cleaned up and renamed her Rassemblement National party since the departure of her mobster dad, is facing the possibility of an exodus of people who liked the party dirty.
    On the left, this weekend saw the advent of the 'primaire de la gauche' which is exactly what it sounds like; a primary to decide on a left-wing candidate.
    Skipping to the end, the winner is the only candidate that actually supported this primary, the very popular Christiane Taubira. A French-Guyanan, she is an experienced politician who lastly was justice minister under Macron.
    Unsurprisingly, all of the other candidates who refused beforehand to accept the results of the primary do not accept those results now, either.
    But let us take a look at the smorgasbord of results:
    mfak05rvn9h8.png (source: https://www.linternaute.com/)


    Then we come to someone who actually does have a shot at getting votes, but not at creating a government: Melenchon, who polls at 10%. Macron polls at 23% at the moment! Melenchon, of La France Insoumise, has had several brushes with glory, but never managed to beat Le Pen in the actual Primary.
    He was beaten in the Primaire de la Gauche by Green party candidate Yannick Jadot. Jadot polls at 5% in general polls, half of what Melenchon pulls.
    Who else is there?
    Pierre Larrouturou, whom I've never heard of, an economist and MEP who is the candidate for a Keynesian-Liberal party of his own making, New Deal. He's not even in the general polls, so I have no idea what his pull is beyond, like all of the above, not sufficient.
    The most important candidate here, for the mainstream media, is Hidalgo, the candidate of the Socialist Party, who rightfully claims she's the only one who could actually form a government should she ever be elected. Alas, she only has 3% of all presidential voters in general polls. It's no exaggeration to note that this spells the end of the PS.
    Then we have Marchandise who is not a party candidate, but a 'citizen candidate' active in platforms such as this left-wing primary.
    A similar candidate is the 24 year old Agueb-Porterie..

    Not represented in this primary of the left: various far-left parties as well as other unaligned candidates. A complete list (up to date 17th of january) is here: https://policy-insider.ai/2022/01/17/all-the-candidates-for-the-french-presidential-election-of-2022/

    Cornucopiist on
    AldoFencingsaxGiantGeek2020Dark Raven XKaputa
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    The French left is consistent, give them that.

    We are all as God made us and frequently much worse
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    edited February 17
    German Der Spiegel is reporting that border police have been accused of throwing refugees overboard in the Aegaen Sea.

    Two refugees reported dead. Article itself is paywalled though, so I can't say anything about the details.

    edit:
    Guardian is also reporting on it
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/feb/17/its-an-atrocity-against-humankind-greek-pushback-blamed-for-double-drowning

    just reprehensible. THe whole Frontex organisation is just fucked up and corrupt.

    honovere on
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    edited April 10
    I know the war is currently the topic, but Germany is also having a few internal kerfufflea going on recently.
    Government and opposition totally botched the mandatory COVID vaccination this week for once in a huge embarrassment.

    But also this:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/08/germany-1950s-chancellor-konrad-adenauer-spy-agency-infiltrate-rival-party-watergate

    Turns out that the first German chancellor after WW2 illegally spied on on the social democrats for over 10 years using the foreign intelligence service for that. It's basically Watergate, but if Reagan did it with the help of the CIA and for 10 years.
    Germany’s first democratically elected chancellor used the country’s foreign intelligence service to systematically spy on his biggest political rivals for almost a decade, a group of independent historians tasked with researching the formerly West German spy agency’s history have discovered.

    The covert and illegal flow of information between the offices of Konrad Adenauer and the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) chief, Reinhard Gehlen, enabled the conservative politician to cement his hold on power through accurate insider knowledge on the campaign strategies, parliamentary manoeuvres and internal power struggles of the Social Democratic party (SPD), which led the opposition in the Bundestag at the time.

    Adenauer basically used a bunch of former Nazis that made up the foreign intelligence as they both viewed anything social democratic as illegitimate and on par with communism it seems.

    Naturally the SPD isn't happy right now.

    honovere on
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    I know the war is currently the topic, but Germany is also having a few internal kerfufflea going on recently.
    Government and opposition totally botched the mandatory COVID vaccination this week for once in a huge embarrassment.

    But also this:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/08/germany-1950s-chancellor-konrad-adenauer-spy-agency-infiltrate-rival-party-watergate

    Turns out that the first German chancellor after WW2 illegally spied on on the social democrats for over 10 years using the foreign intelligence service for that. It's basically Watergate, but if Reagan did it with the help of the CIA and for 10 years.
    Germany’s first democratically elected chancellor used the country’s foreign intelligence service to systematically spy on his biggest political rivals for almost a decade, a group of independent historians tasked with researching the formerly West German spy agency’s history have discovered.

    The covert and illegal flow of information between the offices of Konrad Adenauer and the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) chief, Reinhard Gehlen, enabled the conservative politician to cement his hold on power through accurate insider knowledge on the campaign strategies, parliamentary manoeuvres and internal power struggles of the Social Democratic party (SPD), which led the opposition in the Bundestag at the time.

    Adenauer basically used a bunch of former Nazis that made up the foreign intelligence as they both viewed anything social democratic as illegitimate and on par with communism it seems.

    Naturally the SPD isn't happy right now.

    I mean this is awful, but it happened 60-70 years ago. Will damage Adenauer's image a bit but no one from back then is back around, and even the structures have changed a lot

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudBlackDragon480honovereNyysjanFencingsax
  • CornucopiistCornucopiist Registered User regular
    The French socialists gave France its previous president and the current mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo.
    She’s also their presidential candidate, but things are not going well for her in today’s vote.
    In one French voting office Anne Hidalgo was not available as a choice… and it took two hours before anyone noticed.
    Ouch.

  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited April 10
    First round estimates in the French election are in: Roughly 28 for Macron, 24 for Le Pen, 20 for Melenchon, 7 for Zemmour and 5 for Pecresse.

    Apologies for any missed diacritics/accents.

    This is dire for LR, EELV and Hidalgo. But the only thing I care about is that a friend of Ukraine stays in power.

    Absalon on
    We are all as God made us and frequently much worse
    CornucopiistFencingsax
  • CornucopiistCornucopiist Registered User regular
    A
    The French socialists gave France its previous president and the current mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo.
    She’s also their presidential candidate, but things are not going well for her in today’s vote.
    In one French voting office Anne Hidalgo was not available as a choice… and it took two hours before anyone noticed.
    Ouch.

    Hidalgo is encouraging all 1.9% of her voters to back Macron for round 2. QED on why she has 1.9% of the vote…
    And Jadot follows. Between them they could have given Melenchon enough votes for Le Pen to be out of the running.
    And for an alternative to Macron’s corporatism to be on the agenda…The prevention of which, every Melenchon voter suspects, is the point of this self-sabotage.

    Now, Melenchon gave up trying to poach Le Pen’s voters. They are more upset with immigration than capitalism. So we can see the results as representing a France that is predominantly right wing, with Macron’s light blue corporatism and Le Pen’s far right squeezing Pecresse’s dark blue conservatism.
    Macron is therefore unlikely to change his policies.
    However, you can also read these results as Melenchon and Le Pen and a lot of non-voters representing a large part of the French who are economically losers under Macron.
    Analysis makes much of the impact the death of the high street has had on French cities, on top of historical post-Industrial malaise. In the end, the risk is not just to Macron, but to the entire republic.
    Macron, in this reading, would be wise to end his flirting with far right policies and instead turn to the left socio-economically. Personally, I doubt he can abandon his corporatism even if the cost is an outright revolution.

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    A
    The French socialists gave France its previous president and the current mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo.
    She’s also their presidential candidate, but things are not going well for her in today’s vote.
    In one French voting office Anne Hidalgo was not available as a choice… and it took two hours before anyone noticed.
    Ouch.

    Hidalgo is encouraging all 1.9% of her voters to back Macron for round 2. QED on why she has 1.9% of the vote…
    And Jadot follows. Between them they could have given Melenchon enough votes for Le Pen to be out of the running.
    And for an alternative to Macron’s corporatism to be on the agenda…The prevention of which, every Melenchon voter suspects, is the point of this self-sabotage.

    Now, Melenchon gave up trying to poach Le Pen’s voters. They are more upset with immigration than capitalism. So we can see the results as representing a France that is predominantly right wing, with Macron’s light blue corporatism and Le Pen’s far right squeezing Pecresse’s dark blue conservatism.
    Macron is therefore unlikely to change his policies.
    However, you can also read these results as Melenchon and Le Pen and a lot of non-voters representing a large part of the French who are economically losers under Macron.
    Analysis makes much of the impact the death of the high street has had on French cities, on top of historical post-Industrial malaise. In the end, the risk is not just to Macron, but to the entire republic.
    Macron, in this reading, would be wise to end his flirting with far right policies and instead turn to the left socio-economically. Personally, I doubt he can abandon his corporatism even if the cost is an outright revolution.

    I'll give Macron this, though: He's better than Le Pen.

    And I'll give Le Pen this: She's better than Zemmour. Which is a frightening thought.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    AldoFencingsax
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote: »
    First round estimates in the French election are in: Roughly 28 for Macron, 24 for Le Pen, 20 for Melenchon, 7 for Zemmour and 5 for Pecresse.

    Apologies for any missed diacritics/accents.

    This is dire for LR, EELV and Hidalgo. But the only thing I care about is that a friend of Ukraine stays in power.

    For that, the only option of the top 3 is, unfortunately, Macron. From the outside, neither the fascist or the Le Monde Diplomatique editorial with legs are going to try too hard to oppose Putin.

  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Melenchon has also come out and called for his voters to support Macron. So basically same procedure as last time as far as I can remember?

    AldoGiantGeek2020KaputaTryCatchertynic
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Melenchon has also come out and called for his voters to support Macron. So basically same procedure as last time as far as I can remember?
    Just with even fewer people voting.

  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I saw some people online saying that the French left split their votes to much and cost themselves a chance at entering the second round. Is this true, or just wishful thinking?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 10
    I saw some people online saying that the French left split their votes to much and cost themselves a chance at entering the second round. Is this true, or just wishful thinking?

    Exits had the leading left candidate 3 points behind Le Pen, so probably. But there were 58% between corporatist asshole, fascist #1, and fascist #2 so not sure there was a majority to actually win there without appealing to the fascist anti-Macron vote.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Phoenix-D
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    I do think that making it to the second round and maybe peeling off some Macron voters who now feel safer in not voting for him, and maybe having the fascists stay home might make it possible.

    Plus, getting to the second round to boost their popularity and embarrass Le Penn would of been a victory in of itself.

    Cornucopiist
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited April 10
    Damn, 20 vs 24 for Melenchon and Le Pen. I'd have loved a Melenchon vs Macron race, instead it's this garbage again.

    Whatever France, just keep the far right out I guess.

    Edit - apparently my phone likes to change Melenchon to Melanson for some reason

    Kaputa on
  • CornucopiistCornucopiist Registered User regular
    edited April 11
    My Belgian newspaper reported this morning that ‘nearly all other candidates were at a large remove from Macron & Le Pen.” They didn’t specify which 22% capturing candidate made it a ‘nearly’.
    Le Pen is now at 23!
    That’s the typical shit Melenchon has to deal with even now when he’s the clear main candidate of the left.
    The left was splintered, it’s now united even if not enough remain.
    I’ll have to refer to in depth analysis of voter movements to confirm this, but it seems that Macron has captured much of the bobo (champagnes socialist) left despite cranking up his government appointments into far right territory and sticking with his corporatism.
    So at root; the left is losing because the centrists jumped ship and the corporate media won’t give Melenchon the light of day.
    But they were very close to a win!

    Editing to clarify BoBo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_(socio-economic_group)

    Cornucopiist on
    Kaputa
  • Kayne Red RobeKayne Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    As always, the left will compromise with the center and center-right to prevent fascists from taking power; and the center and center-right will compromise with fascists to prevent the left from taking power.

    CornucopiistAimKaputa
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    I haven't followed the french election as much as I probably should have (but, *waves at everything*). I don't want to put Melenchon in the same pot as Le Pen and Zemmour (shudder), but the result also means that over half of the electorate voted for eurosceptic pro Russian, anti Ukraine candidates, right?

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    I haven't followed the french election as much as I probably should have (but, *waves at everything*). I don't want to put Melenchon in the same pot as Le Pen and Zemmour (shudder), but the result also means that over half of the electorate voted for eurosceptic pro Russian, anti Ukraine candidates, right?

    Even if they did it's still a jump to say everyone who voted for a specific candidate 100% endorses their stance on everything. Modern representative democracy is picking from a menu of bad options to find the thing you hate the least. Leftists don't get a great deal of choice, you vote for whoever isn't right wing regardless of whether you like their take on everything.

    GiantGeek2020Smrtnik
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    My Belgian newspaper reported this morning that ‘nearly all other candidates were at a large remove from Macron & Le Pen.” They didn’t specify which 22% capturing candidate made it a ‘nearly’.
    Le Pen is now at 23!
    That’s the typical shit Melenchon has to deal with even now when he’s the clear main candidate of the left.
    The left was splintered, it’s now united even if not enough remain.
    I’ll have to refer to in depth analysis of voter movements to confirm this, but it seems that Macron has captured much of the bobo (champagnes socialist) left despite cranking up his government appointments into far right territory and sticking with his corporatism.
    So at root; the left is losing because the centrists jumped ship and the corporate media won’t give Melenchon the light of day.
    But they were very close to a win!

    Editing to clarify BoBo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_(socio-economic_group)
    Yeah, that's my impression too. The French Socialist Party died (killed itself, really), but most of the party lurched right toward Macron instead of backing the remaining leftist parties. Then Macron and his government lurched farther to the right, but those "Socialists" stayed on board even as Macron launched an open war on the French working class.

    The plus side is that the remaining left wing party in France are actual socialists, not just capitalists who keep the name for branding purposes, but the downsides are everything else about the political situation in France.

    Cornucopiist
Sign In or Register to comment.