Macron is already off to a bad start with the terrorism speech as they are ‘part of our daily lives for years to come’.... yeah I am not sure many French victims will be happy about that one lol.
I suppose some people will grab whatever information they can to make a more informed guess (or bet) on any election as early as possible. "Allegedly" the last poll coming showed Le Pen leading at 26%. I am in a rush packing for a vacation so I have no idea how true or false that is but yeah throwing that spanner out there for anyone who cares. The election is way too close to call but for arguments sake if am forced to make a call I will guess Le Pen wins (unless else something drastic happens).
"Allegedly" the last poll coming showed Le Pen leading at 26%. I am in a rush packing for a vacation so I have no idea how true or false that is but yeah throwing that spanner out there for anyone who cares. The election is way too close to call but for arguments sake if am forced to make a call I will guess Le Pen wins (unless else something drastic happens).
Nope, Le Pen is second and always has been. Macron leads with 23,9%. This is the up-to-date official estimation at the moment I am posting.
And I strongly doubt she will win. She wouldn't even be qualified if Fillon hadn't exploded in mid-air due to the chain revelations of the Canard Enchaîné on his corruption. Pretty much every single candidate is calling to vote Macron now just like in 2002 for Chirac/Le Pen - father edition. For the record in 2002 Chirac won with 82%.
In the event she actually does win you can expect violence. This won't be pretty.
"In the event that she actually does win you can expect violence. This won't be pretty."
Which has also been the effect of a Trump victory. It's pretty concerning to me that it's not uncommon for right wing candidates to face so much opposition that mass violence is a possibility. I mean, these candidates are voted for. Who has the right to assault anyone over their democratically elected choice in leader.
"In the event that she actually does win you can expect violence. This won't be pretty."
Which has also been the effect of a Trump victory. It's pretty concerning to me that it's not uncommon for right wing candidates to face so much opposition that mass violence is a possibility. I mean, these candidates are voted for. Who has the right to assault anyone over their democratically elected choice in leader.
Easy. The Chaotic Good voters and citizens, apparently.
"In the event that she actually does win you can expect violence. This won't be pretty."
Which has also been the effect of a Trump victory. It's pretty concerning to me that it's not uncommon for right wing candidates to face so much opposition that mass violence is a possibility. I mean, these candidates are voted for. Who has the right to assault anyone over their democratically elected choice in leader.
In the wake of Trump's win, there has been alot of protests, but among the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people who have taken to the streets in the past few months, statistically, almost none of them have been violent. Extremely sporadic sucker punches and some trash can fires, again, mostly involving masked men on college campuses. No one has been killed. Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of people all across the country participated in the March for Science yesterday (the size of which surprised even me) and went off without a hitch. I don't deny anarchist connected dipshits are engaging in illegal and violent behavior. They should be arrested and charged. But let's not act like the world is falling apart here. America's streets are not the dystopian hellhole Trump wants you to believe. "Mass violence" is in no danger of taking place.
The extent of the political violence you are talking about is this: far-right personalities are deliberately provoking what appear to be anarchist collectives and they are stupidly taking the bait every time, giving these people 1000x more media attention and profile than they would otherwise receive. In all of this, as far as I can tell, the only person who has actually been SHOT was a Milo protester who was shot by a Milo supporter. It seems to me at this point that most people gravitating toward these confrontations on college campuses are actively seeking out conflict, and anyone on either side who shows up at these things at this point is just asking for trouble. These events are being manufactured to cause these clashes, which, even as far as political violence goes in the course of the history of this country, amounts to a whole lot of nothing.
As for LePen, it would SEEM on it's surface that considering how the non-LePen vote was split, that it would be very, very difficult for her to win a one on one matchup. And also working against her is the fact that, unlike the US, the candidate who gets the most votes in France actually wins. That said, I would urge those who are opposed to LePen in France to NOT get complacent. She could win, and they would be insane to dismiss the fact that LePen getting into office is yet another domino Putin is trying to get to fall is his favor.
You know what students on these campuses that are hosting Richard Spencer, Milo, and Ann Coulter SHOULD do?? Forget about making signs, forget about chanting something while marching across the campus. Organize a canned food drive for the local Food Bank at the exact same time. Set up a concert with local or campus musicians where the proceeds go to cancer research. Lead with a value that is unassailable and don't even MENTION their name. Will you get attention?? No, but neither will they, and YOU will actually have accomplished some good in the world.
There's nothing sporadic or random about an organised and systematic militant retaliatory group that uses violence as their form of protest, Who are funded by other international organizations and coincidentally always manage to show up against some other person whenever they show their face (They are being tracked 24/7).
Most political marches in the West are funded by corporate or political organization's, There are a variety of ways you can tell.
-citizenry inspired marches don't have widespread equipment because this requires money -citizenry inspired marches are by nature not organised so you don't see well-planned retaliatory protests in succession against some other person or groups calendar events. -Humans by and large do not protest in advance of some fear of disaster, they protest after they have suffered. The West obeys this to an extreme because the West is prosperous.
Virtually every significant political protest in the West recently has had organisations behind it, True protests by citizens is something like the Venezuela rioting against starvation or even the Arab Spring to a certain extent.
Basically, If you want to know what a 'normal' Western society would act without Organisation interference, Then its basically 'protests' against Remain in UK, or 'protests' against the Democrat Party during the 2016 election which were almost non-existent in comparison to the flip-side.
It is no coincidence that the 'political side' that enjoys the support of Globalist corporations also have alot of incredibly active and militant protesters, While 'the side' that enjoys little support by Globalist corporations virtually don't protest at all against the other sides.
This too is reflected in Government and Media, It just so happens that by and large Government and Media coincidentally follow Globalist Corporate interests for many many years.
Macron is already off to a bad start with the terrorism speech as they are ‘part of our daily lives for years to come’.... yeah I am not sure many French victims will be happy about that one lol.
Le Pen was never going to win, but thats not even the aim.
European multi-party election system creates a denser 'gaming' of the system, essentially all the parties involved knew the result and knew what they would do.
It is closer in theme to the Republican Primary strategy by the neo-cons, In essence a crowded field to split votes and prevent the reaching of 25% to force a run-off. The 'losers' will instantly support coincidentally 'one side' (Not Le Pen if you notice) to force her party to lose, Because Le Pen's party is more an enemy of the establishment.
However this is short-term 'gaming' of the system against the long-term cultural trend which is unavoidable.
The Nationalist Party won't win now, but they don't need to now nor did they expect too. Because they will win eventually as the trend is veering very sharply for them.
'Could' this trend be reversed against nationalism? yes, Basically the European counties have to solve Terrorism and the Immigration Crisis before the next election.
Which i laugh at even the possibility they could, since they all but admitted it can't be.
As you quoted on their perspective of terrorism. 'part of our daily lives for years to come’'
There's nothing sporadic or random about an organised and systematic militant retaliatory group that uses violence as their form of protest, Who are funded by other international organizations and coincidentally always manage to show up against some other person whenever they show their face (They are being tracked 24/7).
Most political marches in the West are funded by corporate or political organization's, There are a variety of ways you can tell.
-citizenry inspired marches don't have widespread equipment because this requires money -citizenry inspired marches are by nature not organised so you don't see well-planned retaliatory protests in succession against some other person or groups calendar events. -Humans by and large do not protest in advance of some fear of disaster, they protest after they have suffered. The West obeys this to an extreme because the West is prosperous.
Virtually every significant political protest in the West recently has had organisations behind it, True protests by citizens is something like the Venezuela rioting against starvation or even the Arab Spring to a certain extent.
Basically, If you want to know what a 'normal' Western society would act without Organisation interference, Then its basically 'protests' against Remain in UK, or 'protests' against the Democrat Party during the 2016 election which were almost non-existent in comparison to the flip-side.
It is no coincidence that the 'political side' that enjoys the support of Globalist corporations also have alot of incredibly active and militant protesters, While 'the side' that enjoys little support by Globalist corporations virtually don't protest at all against the other sides.
This too is reflected in Government and Media, It just so happens that by and large Government and Media coincidentally follow Globalist Corporate interests for many many years.
How much money were the 15,000 people in DC and 12,000 people in Los Angeles participating in the science march yesterday paid?? Enough to make a mortgage payment?? Enough to take a family to Applebee's?? Estimates are that more than 4 million people participated in the Women's March. How many people have to be complicit in this protest conspiracy before the word gets out?? And you're under the impression that people who are self-described anarchists are actually being sent in to incite violence by globalist corporate interests?? They've been doing this stuff since the WTO in Seattle in 2000. It's been the same story every time. Alot of backpacks, alot of bandannas covering their faces, broken Starbucks windows and lit trash cans. Sometimes they sucker punch someone. Most of the time our militarized police force knocks the living hell out of them. What would you call Occupy Wall Street?? A globalist conspiracy??
What is meant by organization?? That celebrities and women across the country took to social media to plan the Women's March for the day after Trump was sworn in?? I guess they're guilty on that one. Where is the funding?? How much is being funded?? Who is funding it?? Who is getting paid??
As @semiticgod has pointed out, let's say some shadowy corporation was paying for the expenses for a National protest of 4 million people. Let's conservatively say (very conservatively) that they were throwing in $25 a person to make this happen. That would be a 100 million dollars. What corporation wouldn't just donate or funnel that money directly into a political candidate rather than attempt the impossible task of trying to get millions of citizens to do exactly what you want. Do protests have "organization" behind them?? Yeah, nearly everything that happens where more than 2 people meet has to have some measure of organization. That isn't evidence of some protest conspiracy. Maybe people are just that pissed off about the election.
This too is reflected in Government and Media, It just so happens that by and large Government and Media coincidentally follow Globalist Corporate interests for many many years.
To put this as politely as I can: this is conspiracy theory gobbledygook on the level of "One World Government black helicopters" and "government mind control through fluoride in the water and chemtrails".
Oh yes, the big coal ship protest my wife and I attended a few months ago were totally funded by the government and mysterious corporations, well-known to be enemies of the Australian coal industry. Much like anti-pipeline protests in the US and Canada. The government hates Big Oil, everyone knows that!
A lot of people protested Donald Trump because his political ascension upset a lot of people. They were not paid. They did not have to be. Counter-protests against Democrats were not as big because they were the party and candidate of the status quo (in popular perception). Occupy Wall Street was not funded by the government which loves Wall Street. The Tea Party was not funded by the Obama administration, nor the establishment Republicans they despised (coopted later to an extent, sure, though even then not to the level many leftists want to believe).
Rapid-response demonstrations to events exist because the internet exists and allows the rapid organising of people. This was kinda important to the Arab Spring that you acknowledge as at least a partially real protest, too.
The only reason to believe this preposterous nonsense is a desire to delegitimise the grievances of protesters - and since you believe most protesters are left-wing (I'd like to see some comprehensive evidence to prove this), there is an obvious desire to see them as corrupt and not genuine in the exact same fashion as lefties delude themselves into thinking the Tea Party was entirely the creation of the Koch brothers.
Show me the money, honey. I was at a big coal protest - where's my paycheque? Who rounded me up and told me to go? It would be trivial to prove the existence of such a massive conspiracy, involving literally millions of people being clandestinely paid and organised. Who paid for the Women's March? Who paid for the Science March?
I'm pretty sure a lot of people here would love to get a piece of some of that sweet, sweet paid-to-protest action. So let us in on it. Where do you sign up? It must be super easy given how many not-genuine protesters you believe there to be.
Bear in mind that showing "one thing happened this one time" doesn't prove your point at all. You are alleging a systemic conspiracy to promote largely left-wing causes by modern Western governments and corporations (both well-known for their fondness for left-wing causes, of course). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Nationalism is a fringe movement that the majority of people can see through and recognize it for what it is: a simplistic but wrong answer to a difficult situation.
Isolationism is weakness. We are stronger together. The United States is stronger than just South Carolina. The EU is stronger than the UK - if France leaves it's probably still stronger than than either France or the UK standing divided.
Nationalism is a fringe movement that the majority of people can see through and recognize it for what it is: a simplistic but wrong answer to a difficult situation.
Isolationism is weakness. We are stronger together. The United States is stronger than just South Carolina.
A agree with you, except I don't in the case of Nationalism is fringe. It's clearly on the rise in both the US and Europe, and is clearly more powerful than we originally imagined. Hopefully LePen goes down (and hard) but I'm not longer counting chickens before they hatch. I've been spending alot of time exposing myself to Nationalistic and Alt-Right views this wknd on Youtube, and it is scary how much these ideas are catching on.
European multi-party election system creates a denser 'gaming' of the system, essentially all the parties involved knew the result and knew what they would do.
Yep, they knew Francois Fillon was going to win easily.
The Nationalist Party won't win now, but they don't need to now nor did they expect too. Because they will win eventually as the trend is veering very sharply for them.
If that's so, why isn't Le Pen going to, y'know, actually win? Why did she not even have enough of a constituency to get first place in the first round? And given that supporters of literally every other party would rather vote for literally any other candidate than her (she was going to lose by at least 15 points to any other candidate, even disgraced thieving liar Fillon), what exactly is going to change everybody's mind to supporting her that couldn't change their minds now? Magic?
Like, the only reason Le Pen isn't going to get crushed quite as badly as her father did is that she's backed off the most extreme nationalist and racist rhetoric (and ran a campaign that emphasised her and deemphasised her party). This strategy of becoming more palatable by becoming less nationalist doesn't exactly support your thesis.
Oh, and she also LOST support over the campaign's latter half. So there's also that.
'Could' this trend be reversed against nationalism? yes, Basically the European counties have to solve Terrorism and the Immigration Crisis before the next election.
Which i laugh at even the possibility they could, since they all but admitted it can't be.
As you quoted on their perspective of terrorism. 'part of our daily lives for years to come’'
Well, France could stop militarily intervening willy-nilly in mostly Muslim countries, and they could stop discriminating against and otherwise treating Muslims in France as second-class citizens... nah, you're right, terrorism forever, totes terrorism.
That doesn't particularly mean they're on a forever rising trend of nationalism, however. This, like so many other things, is not the end of history. Nationalism waxes and wanes, and may even disappear altogether to be replaced by something else.
For what it's worth, some level of organization is necessary simply to get multiple people in one place--it just doesn't require paying people to protest.
After all, 200,000 people didn't just spontaneously show up to the March on Washington in 1963 to protest segregation. Numerous organizations and churches worked together to bring them there.
The civil rights protestors were perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The fact that people organized the March on Washington did not make it illegitimate. The same applies to protests today.
For what it's worth, some level of organization is necessary simply to get multiple people in one place--it just doesn't require paying people to protest.
After all, 200,000 people didn't just spontaneously show up to the March on Washington in 1963 to protest segregation. Numerous organizations and churches worked together to bring them there.
The civil rights protestors were perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The fact that people organized the March on Washington did not make it illegitimate. The same applies to protests today.
My guess is the EXACT same arguments were made against the Civil Rights protests of the '60s. The word "outside agitators" is not new. It's the kind of stuff Nixon got elected on. Let's also remember that for whatever you are seeing on a few college campuses recently, the only time something truly horrifying has taken place on one was at Kent State in 1970, when students were mowed down in cold blood by National Guard Troops. There has ALWAYS been a serious strain in this country of demonizing protesters.
My guess is the EXACT same arguments were made against the Civil Rights protests of the '60s.
Yes. One of the biggest fears was that civil rights protestors were allied with Communists, and that the Soviet Union had a hand in the movement.
It didn't, but the link actually made sense in context. Communism made a lot of headway during the twentieth century by forging alliances with anti-colonial groups; it was one of the primary reasons communism became so strong in Latin America. But for the same reasons, a lot of racial equality movements got slandered as Communist fronts. One of the main reasons why the U.S. hesitated to support the ANC in South Africa was because the apartheid regime claimed that the ANC was a communist organization.
A agree with you, except I don't in the case of Nationalism is fringe. It's clearly on the rise in both the US and Europe, and is clearly more powerful than we originally imagined. Hopefully LePen goes down (and hard) but I'm not longer counting chickens before they hatch. I've been spending alot of time exposing myself to Nationalistic and Alt-Right views this wknd on Youtube, and it is scary how much these ideas are catching on.
Nationalism has never been fringe, the idea of love for ones country or the promotion for ones countries culture isn't fringe either and is in fact generally the norm.
What is meant by organization?? That celebrities and women across the country took to social media to plan the Women's March for the day after Trump was sworn in?? I guess they're guilty on that one. Where is the funding?? How much is being funded?? Who is funding it?? Who is getting paid??
Involvement by corporations or established political groups.
For example undercover investigation had clinton political operatives stating they were involved with and heavily staged most of the demonstrations against Trump including the Chicago shutdown.
In terms of 'March for Science' yes there were funding by organizations, large bio-tech firms gave funding and some corporations assisted in logistics and marketing.
How it generally works is that political or corporations give funding to various social activist groups, and those social activist groups in turn organize demonstrations that benefit who is funding for them.
The democrat party in Government had a slush fund to transfer Government money for that purpose.
A agree with you, except I don't in the case of Nationalism is fringe. It's clearly on the rise in both the US and Europe, and is clearly more powerful than we originally imagined. Hopefully LePen goes down (and hard) but I'm not longer counting chickens before they hatch. I've been spending alot of time exposing myself to Nationalistic and Alt-Right views this wknd on Youtube, and it is scary how much these ideas are catching on.
Nationalism has never been fringe, the idea of love for ones country or the promotion for ones countries culture isn't fringe either and is in fact generally the norm.
What is meant by organization?? That celebrities and women across the country took to social media to plan the Women's March for the day after Trump was sworn in?? I guess they're guilty on that one. Where is the funding?? How much is being funded?? Who is funding it?? Who is getting paid??
Involvement by corporations or established political groups.
For example undercover investigation had clinton political operatives stating they were involved with and heavily staged most of the demonstrations against Trump including the Chicago shutdown.
In terms of 'March for Science' yes there were funding by organizations, large bio-tech firms gave funding and some corporations assisted in logistics and marketing.
How it generally works is that political or corporations give funding to various social activist groups, and those social activist groups in turn organize demonstrations that benefit who is funding for them.
The democrat party in Government had a slush fund to transfer Government money for that purpose.
Even if we are to grant that the last sentence is true (which I don't), then how exactly are they using that slush fund when currently when the Republicans control the Executive Branch, the House, the Senate, and now the Supreme Court as well?? There isn't a single lever of power in the Federal Government that their OPPOSITION isn't in charge of. So #1 there is no way they could possibly access this hypothetical slush fund and #2 if this is so widely known and so easy to prove, why aren't the Republicans conducting investigations on this as we speak??
Even if we are to grant that the last sentence is true (which I don't), then how exactly are they using that slush fund when currently when the Republicans control the Executive Branch, the House, the Senate, and now the Supreme Court as well?? There isn't a single lever of power in the Federal Government that their OPPOSITION isn't in charge of. So #1 there is no way they could possibly access this hypothetical slush fund and #2 if this is so widely known and so easy to prove, why aren't the Republicans conducting investigations on this as we speak??
The House Judiciary Committee are trying to stop it now.
The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.
“It’s clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made,” Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. “The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred.”
Whenever big money is involved, nothing is innocent, Corporations and politics always starts getting involved.
Just because you support something doesn't mean it is immune to that, I for example long believed the internet would be swallowed up by corporations eventually, I knew that the topic of immigration would be long consumed by politics and corporations (despite me being not White and from a family of immigrants).
I knew that civil rights activism would be swallowed up by political parties and corporations and used just to get votes (and i used to be in demonstrations for civil rights long ago).
Science is not immune to it either, Scientific groups are funded by corporations and their findings are always slanted to whomever gives them funding, This is well known publicly too. And i'm hardly what you'd call 'anti-science' I used to virulently debate against Christian creationists back in the day of Use-Nets when they reject Evolution and i was involved in the famous atheist/agnostic forums during the early days of the internet (internet Infidels) before it imploded.
Everyone, Every group acts out of self-interest, never expect altruism.
Nationalistic right 'might' be ahead of corporate control for now, but make no mistake it will be controlled by corporations too.
Eventually corporations will vie for favors insofar as they support this ideal, Government favors for companies that only hiring their country-men etc.
You think it is Chaotic Good to throw M-80's and other explosives into crowds. To hit innocent people in the head with locks. To even show up at another guy's event with weapons, ready to start something in the first place.
Journalist Tim Pool, very liberal guy, relatively well known, has covered these things and claimed the violence is about 80% Antifa, 20% free speech supporters. And these are the guys showing to crash the event.
We discussed that exact same story what seems like ages ago so there is really no need to rehash that argument again, since both of those new stories (curiously) use nearly the exact same language as the one from a few months ago, almost like a script being taken back of a drawer. Regardless......
Actually, since the Election, ONE party has voted to give cable companies and internet providers free reign to do whatever they want with your browsing history, and one party tried to stop it. It was a straight down the middle party-line vote. So, yes, corporations are probably going to swallow the internet, but Republicans are the ones who just handed them the keys, and even you can't deny that's the case.
There was a major effort among liberal activists to pressure Obama's FCC Head to respect Net Neutrality. It was hard fought, and it's what happened. The Trump Administration is clearly aiming to obliterate it. On the issue of internet rights, there are no two sides of the same coin. The difference is spelled out in bright neon letters in the Senate vote.
On the issue of internet rights, Obama has for 8 years consistently shown no regard for the privacy rights of ordinary Americans from the government one bit, nor whistleblowers on these matters either. That's far more dangerous than private companies using your data for advertising. Acting as though the difference is night and day is to willfully ignore recent history.
We discussed that exact same story what seems like ages ago so there is really no need to rehash that argument again, since both of those new stories (curiously) use nearly the exact same language as the one from a few months ago, almost like a script being taken back of a drawer. Regardless......
That 'exact' story answers your 'question' of whether Republicans are doing anything about it, strange you would complain about rehashing a story since you wouldn't be asking that question if you remembered it.
No, again a lack of investigation by people in this thread of something they hear about from click-bait articles.
The truth of the internet net neutrality is that the Democrats barred ISP's but allowed every other internet corporation to exchange metadata (Google, Facebook) Not coincidentally Google works closely with the Democrat party.
The Republicans rolled this back by the ISP's complaining it creates an un-even playing field and so it falls back to previous rules on privacy (which exist).
I personally would like the Government to go incredibly further in protecting privacy and bar everyone from sharing it especially Corporations that try to help political parties.
But its hardly the sensationalized click-bait it was made out to be.
The democrat party is not some champion of privacy, because you know, Obama and them supporting the expansion of NSA and Intelligence Gathering Powers on civilians?
On the issue of internet rights, Obama has for 8 years consistently shown no regard for the privacy rights of ordinary Americans from the government one bit, nor whistleblowers on these matters either. That's far more dangerous than private companies using your data for advertising. Acting as though the difference is night and day is to willfully ignore recent history.
then why did obama make internet privacy regulations that Trump enthusiastically repealed?
A agree with you, except I don't in the case of Nationalism is fringe. It's clearly on the rise in both the US and Europe, and is clearly more powerful than we originally imagined. Hopefully LePen goes down (and hard) but I'm not longer counting chickens before they hatch. I've been spending alot of time exposing myself to Nationalistic and Alt-Right views this wknd on Youtube, and it is scary how much these ideas are catching on.
Nationalism has never been fringe, the idea of love for ones country or the promotion for ones countries culture isn't fringe either and is in fact generally the norm.
What is meant by organization?? That celebrities and women across the country took to social media to plan the Women's March for the day after Trump was sworn in?? I guess they're guilty on that one. Where is the funding?? How much is being funded?? Who is funding it?? Who is getting paid??
Involvement by corporations or established political groups.
For example undercover investigation had clinton political operatives stating they were involved with and heavily staged most of the demonstrations against Trump including the Chicago shutdown.
In terms of 'March for Science' yes there were funding by organizations, large bio-tech firms gave funding and some corporations assisted in logistics and marketing.
How it generally works is that political or corporations give funding to various social activist groups, and those social activist groups in turn organize demonstrations that benefit who is funding for them.
The democrat party in Government had a slush fund to transfer Government money for that purpose.
Ridiculous conspiracy theory there for the gullibles from the Republic party. Lame out of context edited videos will only get you so far, and that's convincing the blind believers in whatever you want them to.
The Republic party takes in far more money than the Democratic party does from corporate donors. When they get in power, as they are now, the Republic party cuts regulations and does all it can to let the corporations run over the little guys. Safety? Not needed. Fair pay? Ha you're lucky to work. Health care? Get lost. Maternity leave? No. Tax cuts? For the rich sure. Clean water? Nope, business first.
When the government is using blanket data collection and has a backdoor into virtually every device (thanks wikileaks) what protections are there, really? The governments sincere promise not to peek? Not good enough in my opinion. Not that i'm defending the GOP in this matter.
I will say that only Rand Paul seems genuinely serious about an internet privacy law framework I can get behind.
Comments
I suppose some people will grab whatever information they can to make a more informed guess (or bet) on any election as early as possible. "Allegedly" the last poll coming showed Le Pen leading at 26%. I am in a rush packing for a vacation so I have no idea how true or false that is but yeah throwing that spanner out there for anyone who cares. The election is way too close to call but for arguments sake if am forced to make a call I will guess Le Pen wins (unless else something drastic happens). Who would you prefer then? Melenchon?
And I strongly doubt she will win. She wouldn't even be qualified if Fillon hadn't exploded in mid-air due to the chain revelations of the Canard Enchaîné on his corruption. Pretty much every single candidate is calling to vote Macron now just like in 2002 for Chirac/Le Pen - father edition. For the record in 2002 Chirac won with 82%.
In the event she actually does win you can expect violence. This won't be pretty. Yes I prefer Mélenchon and I'm not ashamed to admit I voted for him. It's not really that I like him but he's the one I despise the least of the lot.
Which has also been the effect of a Trump victory. It's pretty concerning to me that it's not uncommon for right wing candidates to face so much opposition that mass violence is a possibility. I mean, these candidates are voted for. Who has the right to assault anyone over their democratically elected choice in leader.
The extent of the political violence you are talking about is this: far-right personalities are deliberately provoking what appear to be anarchist collectives and they are stupidly taking the bait every time, giving these people 1000x more media attention and profile than they would otherwise receive. In all of this, as far as I can tell, the only person who has actually been SHOT was a Milo protester who was shot by a Milo supporter. It seems to me at this point that most people gravitating toward these confrontations on college campuses are actively seeking out conflict, and anyone on either side who shows up at these things at this point is just asking for trouble. These events are being manufactured to cause these clashes, which, even as far as political violence goes in the course of the history of this country, amounts to a whole lot of nothing.
Most political marches in the West are funded by corporate or political organization's, There are a variety of ways you can tell.
-citizenry inspired marches don't have widespread equipment because this requires money
-citizenry inspired marches are by nature not organised so you don't see well-planned retaliatory protests in succession against some other person or groups calendar events.
-Humans by and large do not protest in advance of some fear of disaster, they protest after they have suffered. The West obeys this to an extreme because the West is prosperous.
Virtually every significant political protest in the West recently has had organisations behind it, True protests by citizens is something like the Venezuela rioting against starvation or even the Arab Spring to a certain extent.
Basically, If you want to know what a 'normal' Western society would act without Organisation interference, Then its basically 'protests' against Remain in UK, or 'protests' against the Democrat Party during the 2016 election which were almost non-existent in comparison to the flip-side.
It is no coincidence that the 'political side' that enjoys the support of Globalist corporations also have alot of incredibly active and militant protesters, While 'the side' that enjoys little support by Globalist corporations virtually don't protest at all against the other sides.
This too is reflected in Government and Media, It just so happens that by and large Government and Media coincidentally follow Globalist Corporate interests for many many years.
European multi-party election system creates a denser 'gaming' of the system, essentially all the parties involved knew the result and knew what they would do.
It is closer in theme to the Republican Primary strategy by the neo-cons, In essence a crowded field to split votes and prevent the reaching of 25% to force a run-off.
The 'losers' will instantly support coincidentally 'one side' (Not Le Pen if you notice) to force her party to lose, Because Le Pen's party is more an enemy of the establishment.
However this is short-term 'gaming' of the system against the long-term cultural trend which is unavoidable.
The Nationalist Party won't win now, but they don't need to now nor did they expect too.
Because they will win eventually as the trend is veering very sharply for them.
'Could' this trend be reversed against nationalism? yes, Basically the European counties have to solve Terrorism and the Immigration Crisis before the next election.
Which i laugh at even the possibility they could, since they all but admitted it can't be.
As you quoted on their perspective of terrorism.
'part of our daily lives for years to come’'
What is meant by organization?? That celebrities and women across the country took to social media to plan the Women's March for the day after Trump was sworn in?? I guess they're guilty on that one. Where is the funding?? How much is being funded?? Who is funding it?? Who is getting paid??
As @semiticgod has pointed out, let's say some shadowy corporation was paying for the expenses for a National protest of 4 million people. Let's conservatively say (very conservatively) that they were throwing in $25 a person to make this happen. That would be a 100 million dollars. What corporation wouldn't just donate or funnel that money directly into a political candidate rather than attempt the impossible task of trying to get millions of citizens to do exactly what you want. Do protests have "organization" behind them?? Yeah, nearly everything that happens where more than 2 people meet has to have some measure of organization. That isn't evidence of some protest conspiracy. Maybe people are just that pissed off about the election.
Oh yes, the big coal ship protest my wife and I attended a few months ago were totally funded by the government and mysterious corporations, well-known to be enemies of the Australian coal industry. Much like anti-pipeline protests in the US and Canada. The government hates Big Oil, everyone knows that!
A lot of people protested Donald Trump because his political ascension upset a lot of people. They were not paid. They did not have to be. Counter-protests against Democrats were not as big because they were the party and candidate of the status quo (in popular perception). Occupy Wall Street was not funded by the government which loves Wall Street. The Tea Party was not funded by the Obama administration, nor the establishment Republicans they despised (coopted later to an extent, sure, though even then not to the level many leftists want to believe).
Rapid-response demonstrations to events exist because the internet exists and allows the rapid organising of people. This was kinda important to the Arab Spring that you acknowledge as at least a partially real protest, too.
The only reason to believe this preposterous nonsense is a desire to delegitimise the grievances of protesters - and since you believe most protesters are left-wing (I'd like to see some comprehensive evidence to prove this), there is an obvious desire to see them as corrupt and not genuine in the exact same fashion as lefties delude themselves into thinking the Tea Party was entirely the creation of the Koch brothers.
Show me the money, honey. I was at a big coal protest - where's my paycheque? Who rounded me up and told me to go? It would be trivial to prove the existence of such a massive conspiracy, involving literally millions of people being clandestinely paid and organised. Who paid for the Women's March? Who paid for the Science March?
I'm pretty sure a lot of people here would love to get a piece of some of that sweet, sweet paid-to-protest action. So let us in on it. Where do you sign up? It must be super easy given how many not-genuine protesters you believe there to be.
Bear in mind that showing "one thing happened this one time" doesn't prove your point at all. You are alleging a systemic conspiracy to promote largely left-wing causes by modern Western governments and corporations (both well-known for their fondness for left-wing causes, of course). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Isolationism is weakness. We are stronger together. The United States is stronger than just South Carolina. The EU is stronger than the UK - if France leaves it's probably still stronger than than either France or the UK standing divided.
Oh. Whoops! If that's so, why isn't Le Pen going to, y'know, actually win? Why did she not even have enough of a constituency to get first place in the first round? And given that supporters of literally every other party would rather vote for literally any other candidate than her (she was going to lose by at least 15 points to any other candidate, even disgraced thieving liar Fillon), what exactly is going to change everybody's mind to supporting her that couldn't change their minds now? Magic?
Like, the only reason Le Pen isn't going to get crushed quite as badly as her father did is that she's backed off the most extreme nationalist and racist rhetoric (and ran a campaign that emphasised her and deemphasised her party). This strategy of becoming more palatable by becoming less nationalist doesn't exactly support your thesis.
Oh, and she also LOST support over the campaign's latter half. So there's also that. Well, France could stop militarily intervening willy-nilly in mostly Muslim countries, and they could stop discriminating against and otherwise treating Muslims in France as second-class citizens... nah, you're right, terrorism forever, totes terrorism.
That doesn't particularly mean they're on a forever rising trend of nationalism, however. This, like so many other things, is not the end of history. Nationalism waxes and wanes, and may even disappear altogether to be replaced by something else.
After all, 200,000 people didn't just spontaneously show up to the March on Washington in 1963 to protest segregation. Numerous organizations and churches worked together to bring them there.
The civil rights protestors were perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The fact that people organized the March on Washington did not make it illegitimate. The same applies to protests today.
It didn't, but the link actually made sense in context. Communism made a lot of headway during the twentieth century by forging alliances with anti-colonial groups; it was one of the primary reasons communism became so strong in Latin America. But for the same reasons, a lot of racial equality movements got slandered as Communist fronts. One of the main reasons why the U.S. hesitated to support the ANC in South Africa was because the apartheid regime claimed that the ANC was a communist organization.
For example undercover investigation had clinton political operatives stating they were involved with and heavily staged most of the demonstrations against Trump including the Chicago shutdown.
In terms of 'March for Science' yes there were funding by organizations, large bio-tech firms gave funding and some corporations assisted in logistics and marketing.
How it generally works is that political or corporations give funding to various social activist groups, and those social activist groups in turn organize demonstrations that benefit who is funding for them.
The democrat party in Government had a slush fund to transfer Government money for that purpose.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/01/25/house-republicans-target-slush-funds-created-by-doj-lawsuits/3/#6313307ec09f
The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.
“It’s clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made,” Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. “The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred.”
Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups.html
Whenever big money is involved, nothing is innocent, Corporations and politics always starts getting involved.
Just because you support something doesn't mean it is immune to that, I for example long believed the internet would be swallowed up by corporations eventually, I knew that the topic of immigration would be long consumed by politics and corporations (despite me being not White and from a family of immigrants).
I knew that civil rights activism would be swallowed up by political parties and corporations and used just to get votes (and i used to be in demonstrations for civil rights long ago).
Science is not immune to it either, Scientific groups are funded by corporations and their findings are always slanted to whomever gives them funding, This is well known publicly too.
And i'm hardly what you'd call 'anti-science' I used to virulently debate against Christian creationists back in the day of Use-Nets when they reject Evolution and i was involved in the famous atheist/agnostic forums during the early days of the internet (internet Infidels) before it imploded.
Everyone, Every group acts out of self-interest, never expect altruism.
Nationalistic right 'might' be ahead of corporate control for now, but make no mistake it will be controlled by corporations too.
Eventually corporations will vie for favors insofar as they support this ideal, Government favors for companies that only hiring their country-men etc.
Journalist Tim Pool, very liberal guy, relatively well known, has covered these things and claimed the violence is about 80% Antifa, 20% free speech supporters. And these are the guys showing to crash the event.
It's Chaotic Good because Trump is evil?
Actually, since the Election, ONE party has voted to give cable companies and internet providers free reign to do whatever they want with your browsing history, and one party tried to stop it. It was a straight down the middle party-line vote. So, yes, corporations are probably going to swallow the internet, but Republicans are the ones who just handed them the keys, and even you can't deny that's the case.
There was a major effort among liberal activists to pressure Obama's FCC Head to respect Net Neutrality. It was hard fought, and it's what happened. The Trump Administration is clearly aiming to obliterate it. On the issue of internet rights, there are no two sides of the same coin. The difference is spelled out in bright neon letters in the Senate vote.
No, again a lack of investigation by people in this thread of something they hear about from click-bait articles.
The truth of the internet net neutrality is that the Democrats barred ISP's but allowed every other internet corporation to exchange metadata (Google, Facebook) Not coincidentally Google works closely with the Democrat party.
The Republicans rolled this back by the ISP's complaining it creates an un-even playing field and so it falls back to previous rules on privacy (which exist).
I personally would like the Government to go incredibly further in protecting privacy and bar everyone from sharing it especially Corporations that try to help political parties.
But its hardly the sensationalized click-bait it was made out to be.
The democrat party is not some champion of privacy, because you know, Obama and them supporting the expansion of NSA and Intelligence Gathering Powers on civilians?
The Republicans rolled it back on the basis of unfair competition because the ISP's complained.
The Republic party takes in far more money than the Democratic party does from corporate donors. When they get in power, as they are now, the Republic party cuts regulations and does all it can to let the corporations run over the little guys. Safety? Not needed. Fair pay? Ha you're lucky to work. Health care? Get lost. Maternity leave? No. Tax cuts? For the rich sure. Clean water? Nope, business first.
The ISP's didn't like it.
Amazon, Facebook, Google supported it.
Now which companies benefit from ISP's not being able to share data but they do? which companies heavily were involved with the Democrat Party?
Amazon, Facebook, Google.
A little research and you'll realize how heavily involved corporations are in anything the Government does.
I will say that only Rand Paul seems genuinely serious about an internet privacy law framework I can get behind.