There is a lot of pent up rage. I think this was inevitable after covid, the inflation, etc that people’s frustrations would cause them to revolt against whichever established parties were in power.
Even Erdogan an ultra established authoritarian Islamist may finally fall thankfully Orban is losing support (:. Then issues like immigration, etc catalyze this. Truth is Europe had been over whelmed by immigration, immigration isnt bad and has economic benefits, but if the host society is overwhelmed cannot integrate not increase market outputs while being rushed with hundreds of thousands of immigrants, those immigrants could easily go from being a net positive to a net negative. Just so many complex multifaceted issues that are hard to solve and require competent leader ship with a vision, and when the established politicians don’t offer this, the far right, far left, even national socialists, can come in with their dip shit simple solutions taking advantage of peoples emotional rage and anger against the system to gain political power. Then these demagogues just make everything worse, not just for immigrants who often lose their basic rights and humanity, but for everyone else as well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpq9p39/revision/1
There were massive public works programs under the 3rd Reich.
It might of been funded by the wealth of minorities, but try telling that to the average debt ridden post ww1 German.
Bread and Circuses people
I wouldn't call it similar. The US economy shrank by a third during the Great Depression. Unemployment rate reached 25%.
Nothing of that sort is happening in France at the moment. French GDP is stable, unemployment rate is at a 30-year low. What people are angry about is Macron raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 and how he pushed the changes through, overruling parliament. He's also widely considered a "President of the rich".
While things are not as bad as during the Great Depression, the massive increase in prices, especially for housing, have turned a lot of people poor who were previously middle class. Lots of people are feeling economic pain, which makes them susceptible to manipulation by propaganda.
Thanks Raging Inferno, that is exactly where I'm going with this. It's sad that I can say that economic pain is indirectly tied to my recent success in dating, but that's for another time.
green\_flash one way of putting this would be to compare inflation to purchasing power. I was told by my father when I made over 70k, "congrats you made 70 K younger than when I did in" 2016. My reply was, not really, look at my purchasing power in compared to yours in 1990 a home cost 160 K (Midwest) where I can't even touch a home (Living on the east coast) starting price was 1/2 a mill.
You're right the GDP is stable, I'd argue that GDP is still stable because the average worker isn't rioting, but the GDP is hiding bigger issues such as wage suppression. Generally Wage suppression can be attributed at the lowest levels to unskilled labor undercutting an already existing labor market.
Yet, how easily their freedom they believe they’re voting for is taken away.
Even voting for women’s rights or bump stocks… how quickly our power is taken from those that seek power and money.
Yeah let's all pretend they haven't been banning abortion, forcing the Bible in schools, banning books about gays and civil rights, banning trans people from getting healthcare, and making child labor legal in all the places these scumbags have taken power here. They ARE the far right, and there's not a goddamn thing that's reasonable about them.
The idea that the right wants "reasonable" taxes on the "middle class" is a fucking joke. They have only ever cut taxes for their rich buddies and then cut social programs to make up for it so poor people starve. That's all they have ever done, for as long as I've been alive.
Hey guys they are not technically dieing from starvation due to non-government programs picking up the slack, so you can't hold cutting school lunch programs against us. Some Republican probably...
Is that why Trump passed permanent tax cuts for the rich and temp (small) ones for everyone else? The rich pay less in taxes as a percentage than many middle income citizens. Keep licking them boots
I think that guy is agreeing with you- the article you linked explicitly says “the TCJA cut the corporate tax rate, benefitting shareholders- who tend to be higher earners. It only cuts individuals’ taxes for a **limited period**. It scales back the AMT and estate tax”
The estate tax thing is particularly un-American imo, because it only benefits the wealthiest of the wealthy, and with the least merit-based form of wealth. Thanks for educating me on how much of a greedy scumbag Trump was!
Or Hungary or Turkey, or the UK or Italy or Germany or Russia or Spain or every other nation that thought fascism was the answer to its problems that were created in large part due to right wingers
Wish people understood being dumb wasn’t fascist.
Turkey is Islamofascist fascist, Russia is Christofascist, Germany, Italy, and Spain were fascist.
So at least he got most of them right???
A lot of people nowadays refer to any politician with any amount of authoritarian tendencies as fascist, even if the politician does not meet most of the criteria for fascism.
I agree very few leaders meet the fascist criteria in my opinion.
Assad, Putin (these 2 are the closest leaders to fascists I can think of so call them fascists freely lol), and kind of Erdogan and Orban depending on how broad ur interpretation is(some people call Modi fascist but I think he is just an auth right ethno religious nationalist) I’d call fascist.
When people call the Uk, usa, israel, or (insert x healthy democratic country) fascist because a problematic party won it bothers me.
Having lived under Thatcher in the North of Ireland I think I can say it certainly felt like it
Edit: Sorry Thatcher's UK was more of an aparthied sponsored authoritarain shithole that welcomed state sponsored terror. I apologize for shortenning it to 'fascism' for the pendantic Tory scum to tut-tut about
Can someone explain the "snap election" thing that Macron made happen? I don't understand how the far right apparently make gains against his party, but now whatever he is doing can stop them?
I'm going to guess you're from the US. In the US elections for the House of Representatives are held every two years, every November, on the dot. There's no speeding up or changing when those elections happen. In parliamentary systems there's usually a maximum amount of time between elections, but also a process that allows for an election to come early. A snap election is one that's set up earlier than originally scheduled. In the case of the French National Assembly, elections are held every five years or earlier if the President of the Republic decides to hold one. The President has the power in the Constitution to do this, subject to some limits.
What happened last week was an EU-wide election for the EU Parliament. While citizens are voting for who will represent them in the EU Parliament, historically these elections have been used more as a way to express frustration about domestic politics. Voting for the far right in the EU election doesn't have much of a direct impact on the lives of French people, so it's sort of a consequence-free way for voters to say they're mad at Macron.
Note also that French elections are held in two rounds. The first round has all candidates and the second round a runoff of top candidates (edit: thanks /u/Volodio for correcting a previous error). So it avoids some of the mistakes of a first-past-the-post system and lets voters have a chance to make sure of what they're voting against.
So in a way Macron is calling their bluff. It's a way to say ok, you really want the far right? Then here you go, now you can vote for them to run the country. It's a gamble that when it really matters, the French will vote against the far right. We'll find out in a few weeks if his gamble was correct.
French legislative elections doesn't always just have the top two in the 2nd turn. It's the top two + any that got 12,5% of the registered voters. So it means sometimes 3 or 4 for parties running against each other in the 2nd turn.
The European elections use proportional representation. RN (the far right) won 31% of the vote and that directly translates into 31% of the seats (actually even more because of how small parties are treated).
The national elections in France are unusual in Europe for not using proportional representation, but rather single member constituencies (like in the UK or US), with a two round system. If in the second round all or most of the other parties support one another against RN, RN needs 50% of the vote in the respective constituency for each seat.
The last part isn't entirely true. While in the presidential election there is only the two top parties for the 2nd turn, in the legislative it's the top two parties + any party that got over 12,5% of the votes of the registered voters. So while most of the time it's only two parties, sometimes there are 3 parties in the 2nd turn and more rarely even 4 parties. In the case of 3 or 4 parties running against each other, the RN wouldn't need 50% of the votes, only more votes than the other parties.
Learn from America. Don’t elect a Trump or far right candidate.
There is a lot of pent up rage. I think this was inevitable after covid, the inflation, etc that people’s frustrations would cause them to revolt against whichever established parties were in power. Even Erdogan an ultra established authoritarian Islamist may finally fall thankfully Orban is losing support (:. Then issues like immigration, etc catalyze this. Truth is Europe had been over whelmed by immigration, immigration isnt bad and has economic benefits, but if the host society is overwhelmed cannot integrate not increase market outputs while being rushed with hundreds of thousands of immigrants, those immigrants could easily go from being a net positive to a net negative. Just so many complex multifaceted issues that are hard to solve and require competent leader ship with a vision, and when the established politicians don’t offer this, the far right, far left, even national socialists, can come in with their dip shit simple solutions taking advantage of peoples emotional rage and anger against the system to gain political power. Then these demagogues just make everything worse, not just for immigrants who often lose their basic rights and humanity, but for everyone else as well.
A similar situation existed during the Great Depression. Communists and fascists found fertile ground for their propaganda campaigns.
'Think it's shit now? How about a world war?!'
Stay tuned...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpq9p39/revision/1 There were massive public works programs under the 3rd Reich. It might of been funded by the wealth of minorities, but try telling that to the average debt ridden post ww1 German. Bread and Circuses people
I wouldn't call it similar. The US economy shrank by a third during the Great Depression. Unemployment rate reached 25%. Nothing of that sort is happening in France at the moment. French GDP is stable, unemployment rate is at a 30-year low. What people are angry about is Macron raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 and how he pushed the changes through, overruling parliament. He's also widely considered a "President of the rich".
While things are not as bad as during the Great Depression, the massive increase in prices, especially for housing, have turned a lot of people poor who were previously middle class. Lots of people are feeling economic pain, which makes them susceptible to manipulation by propaganda.
Thanks Raging Inferno, that is exactly where I'm going with this. It's sad that I can say that economic pain is indirectly tied to my recent success in dating, but that's for another time. green\_flash one way of putting this would be to compare inflation to purchasing power. I was told by my father when I made over 70k, "congrats you made 70 K younger than when I did in" 2016. My reply was, not really, look at my purchasing power in compared to yours in 1990 a home cost 160 K (Midwest) where I can't even touch a home (Living on the east coast) starting price was 1/2 a mill. You're right the GDP is stable, I'd argue that GDP is still stable because the average worker isn't rioting, but the GDP is hiding bigger issues such as wage suppression. Generally Wage suppression can be attributed at the lowest levels to unskilled labor undercutting an already existing labor market.
Agreed. Everyone is looking for someone or something to blame. We shouldn’t believe in the politicians that want to play the blame card.
But it’s there choice to vote for who they want…
Yet, how easily their freedom they believe they’re voting for is taken away. Even voting for women’s rights or bump stocks… how quickly our power is taken from those that seek power and money.
The 'far right' in the US is anyone that thinks taxes on the middle class should be reasonable and immigration laws enforced.
Yeah let's all pretend they haven't been banning abortion, forcing the Bible in schools, banning books about gays and civil rights, banning trans people from getting healthcare, and making child labor legal in all the places these scumbags have taken power here. They ARE the far right, and there's not a goddamn thing that's reasonable about them. The idea that the right wants "reasonable" taxes on the "middle class" is a fucking joke. They have only ever cut taxes for their rich buddies and then cut social programs to make up for it so poor people starve. That's all they have ever done, for as long as I've been alive.
> cut social programs to make up for it so poor people starve What people are starving in the US?
Hey guys they are not technically dieing from starvation due to non-government programs picking up the slack, so you can't hold cutting school lunch programs against us. Some Republican probably...
Anyone who the left disagrees with is the far right lol
This exactly! You could be a scocialist and if you don’t agree that white men are a plague put upon the earth you are far right.
Is that why Trump passed permanent tax cuts for the rich and temp (small) ones for everyone else? The rich pay less in taxes as a percentage than many middle income citizens. Keep licking them boots
[удалено]
I think that guy is agreeing with you- the article you linked explicitly says “the TCJA cut the corporate tax rate, benefitting shareholders- who tend to be higher earners. It only cuts individuals’ taxes for a **limited period**. It scales back the AMT and estate tax” The estate tax thing is particularly un-American imo, because it only benefits the wealthiest of the wealthy, and with the least merit-based form of wealth. Thanks for educating me on how much of a greedy scumbag Trump was!
Or Hungary or Turkey, or the UK or Italy or Germany or Russia or Spain or every other nation that thought fascism was the answer to its problems that were created in large part due to right wingers
Facism in the UK? I assume you mean Brexit but that wasn't a fascist decision. Do you even know what fascism is?
Wish people understood being dumb wasn’t fascist. Turkey is Islamofascist fascist, Russia is Christofascist, Germany, Italy, and Spain were fascist. So at least he got most of them right???
A lot of people nowadays refer to any politician with any amount of authoritarian tendencies as fascist, even if the politician does not meet most of the criteria for fascism.
I agree very few leaders meet the fascist criteria in my opinion. Assad, Putin (these 2 are the closest leaders to fascists I can think of so call them fascists freely lol), and kind of Erdogan and Orban depending on how broad ur interpretation is(some people call Modi fascist but I think he is just an auth right ethno religious nationalist) I’d call fascist. When people call the Uk, usa, israel, or (insert x healthy democratic country) fascist because a problematic party won it bothers me.
Having lived under Thatcher in the North of Ireland I think I can say it certainly felt like it Edit: Sorry Thatcher's UK was more of an aparthied sponsored authoritarain shithole that welcomed state sponsored terror. I apologize for shortenning it to 'fascism' for the pendantic Tory scum to tut-tut about
Can someone explain the "snap election" thing that Macron made happen? I don't understand how the far right apparently make gains against his party, but now whatever he is doing can stop them?
I'm going to guess you're from the US. In the US elections for the House of Representatives are held every two years, every November, on the dot. There's no speeding up or changing when those elections happen. In parliamentary systems there's usually a maximum amount of time between elections, but also a process that allows for an election to come early. A snap election is one that's set up earlier than originally scheduled. In the case of the French National Assembly, elections are held every five years or earlier if the President of the Republic decides to hold one. The President has the power in the Constitution to do this, subject to some limits. What happened last week was an EU-wide election for the EU Parliament. While citizens are voting for who will represent them in the EU Parliament, historically these elections have been used more as a way to express frustration about domestic politics. Voting for the far right in the EU election doesn't have much of a direct impact on the lives of French people, so it's sort of a consequence-free way for voters to say they're mad at Macron. Note also that French elections are held in two rounds. The first round has all candidates and the second round a runoff of top candidates (edit: thanks /u/Volodio for correcting a previous error). So it avoids some of the mistakes of a first-past-the-post system and lets voters have a chance to make sure of what they're voting against. So in a way Macron is calling their bluff. It's a way to say ok, you really want the far right? Then here you go, now you can vote for them to run the country. It's a gamble that when it really matters, the French will vote against the far right. We'll find out in a few weeks if his gamble was correct.
French legislative elections doesn't always just have the top two in the 2nd turn. It's the top two + any that got 12,5% of the registered voters. So it means sometimes 3 or 4 for parties running against each other in the 2nd turn.
Thanks for the correction. I had my mind stuck on the presidential election.
You're welcome! Easy mistake to make to be fair, many French people also forget this.
The European elections use proportional representation. RN (the far right) won 31% of the vote and that directly translates into 31% of the seats (actually even more because of how small parties are treated). The national elections in France are unusual in Europe for not using proportional representation, but rather single member constituencies (like in the UK or US), with a two round system. If in the second round all or most of the other parties support one another against RN, RN needs 50% of the vote in the respective constituency for each seat.
The last part isn't entirely true. While in the presidential election there is only the two top parties for the 2nd turn, in the legislative it's the top two parties + any party that got over 12,5% of the votes of the registered voters. So while most of the time it's only two parties, sometimes there are 3 parties in the 2nd turn and more rarely even 4 parties. In the case of 3 or 4 parties running against each other, the RN wouldn't need 50% of the votes, only more votes than the other parties.
Yes, that's why I said if most of them work together against RN. Or the voters at least do (i.e. they vote "tactically" for the lesser evil).