As a European this comes as a huge relief, especially given the poorly-timed email leak (with Russian names in the metadata).
Here's to hoping that Europe can continue working together and begin to reform itself, and not tear itself apart like some of our American 'allies' on the (alt-)right would like.
Lots of challenges ahead, but we wouldn't want it to be too easy now would we?
Any 12 year old kiddie can change meta data on files. Faking meta data to place false clues is intelligence service 101 as documented by many NSA/CIA leaks.
Sure, but if documents supposedly belonging to French political actors have Russian names in the metadata, it means they were tampered with. It doesn't matter if the tampering was done by Russia or by the USA; either way, those documents are not authentic, which means the whole "look what we found when we hacked his email" story is a fraud.
As a European I see this as a huge concern. Choosing Macron means keeping the status quo, which means continued mass immigration, continued bad economic policy, etc... in Europe. I am sure the bankers will be glad as will the European Commission and the multinationals, but the common people will become disillusioned in a few years as more and more terrorist attacks will happen into Europe and the problems with the economic policy if the EU will become more visible (the mass printing of money by Draghi and forcing countries buy bad bonds to cover this pyramid scheme).
But -for me personally- I'd say it's a good thing. As I stated before, choosing Macron means keeping up with the status quo and I intend to leave Europe for Asia next year (I have an Asian girlfriend and daughter). I do realise that if Le Pen would be chosen now there would be unrest in the Economic markets, the EU, etc... So for me personally it will be a good time to just make a bit more money before leaving permanently.
In the end the choice for Macron will only delay the inevitable though. The EU is dead, it just doesn't realise it yet. The only problem is: the longer it takes for the EU to collapse, the messier it will become.
Soros hedged against the Pound/De-Mark peg. I have doubts it can be done to the Euro (too strong) but it can be done to another currency of a weaker economy pegged which to the Euro, for instance the Bulgarian Lev (BGN).
I don't agree with the downvotes you are receiving, you make some good overall points (but also some bad ones).
Nothing is dead until it is entirely dead, and the EU idea still runs strong in people. Things need to change, as Brexit and the recent problems faced by the union have shown. Now it's down to the time to reform.
I don't think Macron is choosing the status quo though, hes as much as a political outsider as Trump and I hope he will make some progress in achieving reforms.
It's funny that he has this image of being a banker. This guy did all of his career at the ministry of finance or in a minister's staff, then went to monetize his address book for two years in a bank before coming back to politics. I don't really see him as a banker. I see him as a civil servant and a networking artist.
When I see people complain about the EU it's usually about "the EU taking their sovereignty and imposing stuff on them".
So if "things are going to change" that means the EU would have to become less like the U.S. (a federal entity), and more like an aggregate of wildly different cultures and regulations (so more like the pre-EU Europe).
Is that really a good thing? And do things "need to change" that way? Or is more education necessary about why the EU needs to become more homogeneous and less heterogeneous?
I can say one thing - if EU states remain wildly different from each other in culture, language, and regulations, the EU will continue to remain a much less appealing market than the US. And it's not so much that the laws are "stricter" (like say the privacy ones), as it is about the laws being different in each country, and making it hard for a company to be compliant with all of them. And I think that means fewer options and fewer quality products for Europeans in the end (you'll be stuck with your locally-made products).
Of course, you can find all kind of opinions, but it seems to me, that the EU (more specifically the Euroarea) could be just a loose commercial and travel area without a common currency or a real federation with economics stabilizer between regions and a real democratic mandate.
What it can't be is something in the middle, like it's now.
What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed. The EU as it is right now is becoming the next Sovient Union. A undemocratic, centralised, bureaucratic superstate that strips the people from their sovereignty, independence, cultural and ethnic traditions.
Further, you seem to assume that without the EU, trade between countries would somehow radically decrease, i don't see that happening. The European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen treaty exist independently from the EU. Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, yet they trade perfectly fine with others. The EU is not necessary for free trade.
PS: Feel free to downvote, but at least make an argument.
> What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed.
First, If we would never try what in the past has failed then we would be really in a very stagnant state. Second, the EU has not failed, the EU is still the main reason for the prosperity most of its members have gained and still continue to gain after WWII. That it has had some backlashes recently does not mean at all that it has failed.
> The EU is not necessary for free trade.
It is not. It is however necessary for a internal economic market that guarantees the free flow of capital and labor, which is much wider/different in scope than free trade. Free trade can be arranged with a few trade treaties in neo liberal style.
Which (apart from agriculture and fishery) regularly incorporates the EU acquis as an integral part of how it's set up. I would more accurately describe the purpose of the EEA as "provide a way of EU membership without calling it such".
Austria Hungary has failed. The Soviet Union has failed even though everybody in it was speaking Russian, which is not the case with the EU. The EU will fail if it continues like this, with massive centralization of power. The difference is that unlike Austria Hungary and the USSR, it does not have a standing army to back its power and member states will leave when economic crisis hits and it's no longer in their best interests to stay.
> The EU will fail if it continues like this, with massive centralization of power.
I keep hearing this argument, but I've never heard any supporting arguments. What evidence is there that "sovereignty" is optimal at the administrative scale of modern-day nation-states and not EU-sized scales, or going the other direction, at provincial, city or district levels?
The EU, incidentally, is the scale of a large modern day nation-state. It's obviously a bigger scale then it's own constituent nation-states, but then so are China, India, Ruusia, and the USA.
The evidence is to be found in the study of monetary policy. Depending on your political inclination, I suggest a web search for late Thatcher speeches, or Varoufakis books. Ideally, both.
Germany was build out of different german speaking principalities. Germany was problematic in the 20th century but the problems were against its neighbours, not within.
And then there are those 13 ex-colonies, now 50, which dared to want an ever closer union. They had a civil war, yes, but since then secession seems to out of the picture.
They were already speaking German and Otto von Bismarck and did lend them a bit of a helping hand, pissing off the French in the process, which pretty much led to both world wars.
I think EU is pretty logical extension if you have both EEA (free trade) and Schengen (free movement of people). If USA was just a collection of independent states with free trade agreement and free movement of people, we would live in a very different world.
Benefits is that there are a lot to negotiate internally besides free trade agreements and it gives negotiation power in the global arena, now that there are at least 3 superpowers (USA, China, Russia to the lesser extent).
> if EU states remain wildly different from each other in culture, language, and regulations, the EU will continue to remain a much less appealing market than the US.
Sounds like you're advocating erasing the cultural and linguistic variety of the member states in favour of a common language and culture so that American companies can sell things more easily?
The EU feels out of touch, unresponsive, "undemocratic". Whether it is or not isn't the issue; it feels that way to too many people. Many people therefore feel very little emotional affinity with the EU. If the EU is going to survive, that needs to change, because it opens the door to anti-EU populists in several countries. If enough win, the EU could become a skeleton of what it is now.
"I don't think Macron is choosing the status quo though, hes as much as a political outsider as Trump and I hope he will make some progress in achieving reforms."
Macron was and investment banker and a Minister of Economy. I suppose our definitions of outsider are really different.
I don't think Macron is a political outsider. He is from elite schools, served as a finance minister before. What he (and powers that backed him) realized is that political landscapes are changing everywhere and there was an opportunity to run without support of traditional parties. The major political axis is now national/conservative vs global/liberal, instead of traditional economic left vs right.
Don't fool yourself, it's still left/right and will get even more radicalized as the economic climate worsens and we face disruption (terrorism, migration).
Don't fool yourself: terrorism by a few religious loonies as a problem has been and will be a drop in the ocean.
The real issues are: how we organize work and social security in the global knowledge economy? How we deal with the climate change? How we deal with info ops, which is already much more destabilizing problem for western democracies than terrorism. You are right that migration is tough challenge, how we will handle increasing migration?
Trump a political outsider. Lol. What a lie and many of the unthinking masses actually believed it. They probably still do. As if billionaires and politicians don't run in the exact same circles. As if it wasn't made crystal clear after the inauguration. Politics and business leadership in the U.S. are the same thing. There's no way in hell anyone's going to make billions without being a political insider.
Has it been proven? One of his advisers is on the record stating that the cabinet was chosen to "deconstruct the administrative state"[1], and Trump proceeded to appoint individuals (at least 2 by my reckoning) with beliefs contrary to the missions of the agencies they lead.
True, he appointed terrible people to the head of some important organizations. Dismantling them could be labeled "anti-establishment" but if they were a net win for humanity and kill/downsizing is a net win for business, that is clearly the establishment trope of pandering to big business.
I agree with this, and would add that I do not think Macron is even an especially skilled representative of the status quo. I hope I'm wrong, but I predict his administration will be inept in a way that makes FN more popular, not less, much as Hollande's administration was.
I'm relieved, because there was one person running who was less suited to the office than Macron, and she didn't get elected, but that's a bit different than celebrating.
Have you and your European friends tried actually addressing some of the racist beliefs you casually take for granted which lead you to discriminate against immigrants when it comes to integration into society? (They are always considered lesser, even after numerous generations in the country).
Source: Am Canadian who moved to Europe 2 years ago and am constantly shocked by how racists Europeans are.
I think part of the problem is that in Canada an immigrant is considered "Canadian" as soon as they get their citizenship. People are proud of their heritage, but nobody gets to claim superiority of citizenship. Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Being in favour of strong immigration policies is not something racist I believe. Each European tax payer pays their respective governments for having a save country to raise their children in. It's the governments task to make sure the people that do enter the country are real refugees or people that add value to the economy. And above all there should be no terrorists entering the country. But currently the influx into Europe is so big that for most immigrants no proper background checks are done. Also people that have known to have fought in Syria are also allowed back into our countries (at least this is true for my country, The Netherlands). I believe from these kinds of people we should take away their citizenship.
Other countries have much more sensible immigration policies, like the USA and Australia. Or most Asian countries, for that matter.
> Have you and your European friends tried actually addressing some of the racist beliefs you casually take for granted which lead you to discriminate against immigrants when it comes to integration into society?
I don't think this is fair at all. I'm of Middle Eastern stock (now living in the US) and even I was kind of shocked when I stayed near Gare du Nord in Paris (especially) and in some other parts of the city. I did not feel as if I was in Europe. It felt like a souk in Qatar. I date a French North African woman and so am acutely aware of the integration problems many (not all of course) immigrants have in France. Many old time French North Africans, who fought for normality in the French society over decades, are now finding themselves on the side of "the other" again because of unnecessary mass immigration of people who are certainly not french and secular enough like the North Africans who migrated in the 60s and 70s. New Islamic immigration is preying on 2nd and 3rd generation somewhat normalized immigrants and destroying a population that was integrated and also creating a divide among the different ethnic groups within the country.
You may consider this perspective to be racist. But I don't see how allowing racist Middle Easterners (like most people I grew up with) with homophobic tendencies (almost a given) to mass immigrate to a country is not racist itself.
> Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Why is this an issue? It is an exception to have countries like America and Canada (both of which I adore) which are based on ideals [1]. Most nations are created after bloody ethnic wars (especially in Europe). It would be wrong to force them to give up their ancestral lands. A crude proxy for seeing this is to have a look at the birthright citizenship map [2]. Only a handful of nations have jus soil (US and Canada being among them). Majority are jus sanguinis. And the trend is for ethnic countries like Germany and Ireland to go more towards jus sanguinis. Ethnic countries like Ireland and India in fact used to be jus soil and have recently moved away from that to preserve the ethnicity. So for countries built on ethnicity, why would you expect it not to be the case that one is defined by their ancestry?
[1] And yes, there are significant problems with the history of America especially with respect to the Native Americans.
You're comparing vastly different immigration systems, Canada takes in highly educated immigrants and your country has always been growing by immigration. Many European countries have their own share of unprivileged ethnic minorities or quite simply defranchised parts of the country where the big arrival of migrants economically threatens their livelihood, that's not racist.
> Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Yeah, too many different languages, too many cultures and ages of history where Europeans ruled over each other precisely because of the ancestry and the power that went along with it. That is highly engraved in collective mind of most European countries.
Some signs that a comment is probably bad by HN's standard: (1) general claims on provocative matters; (2) pejorative 'you'; (3) using the word 'actually' about something difficult; (4) promotion of one identity over another. The more such markers in a comment, the more troll effects it has, even if the trolling is unintentional. (Most is.)
Some things that counteract these effects: nuance; empathy; personal experience.
The difference between europe on one hand and the US and Canada on the other hand, is that in the latter cases, the original population has been "replaced".
As an European, I find it quite tasteless to be criticised by Canadians for our views on immigration, when you get the cream of the crop and we get the rabble mostly because of geographical reasons. To take an example from Turkey: you get the educated slice of society, liberal and progressive.
We get the peasants that deem it normal to bury their daughters alive because they talk with boys.
(This is an exaggeration, but you don't seem to mind heavy-handedness).
We don't oppose mass immigration because of the color of their skin or their religion, but because their views regarding women's rights, LGBT rights are so alien to ours, as well as because we don't actually manage to assimilate migrants fast enough to ensure our society thrives.
Why isn't education a solution to improve assimilation? Also, poor example on using Turkey, I don't think you can find many Turkish people that are opposed to women's rights or tolerating LGBT.
The principles of the EU are great, just badly executed. Europe is not dead, there is however democracy which isn't as easy as dictatorship. Let's see how the brexit turns out also, right now it's too soon to tell
'I intend to leave for Asia'. Get a grip you fool, you're an immigrant yourself and you're hating on immigrants who migrate for the same reasons as you?
I live in France near the Swiss-France border and all this talk about how more borders will reduce terrorism and immigration is completely bullshit.
I cross every day the border. Twice a week, I cross another border which is meant to be closed from 19h to 6h (many small borders near the FR-CH do that). There is a simply locked barrier. Nothing more. This has been here for 25+ years. Of course, I've crossed "illegally" this border by bike plenty of times (its faster) and it has been very very easy (I won't even talk about all the woods around the border that haven't got a single fence). A terrorist wanting to cross a border would be very stupid to get caught.
So all this talk about how getting out of the EU is complete bullshit to me.
I've seen borders working fine. For example in Israel. Hungary seems to be doing well also. I don't believe in this rhetoric that borders don't work.
Back when I was a small boy, almost every month there was some bombing going on in Israel. These attacks have been greatly reduced by several measures, including the building of the wall.
Closed borders means more than just closed border crossings.
It implies that foreigners need to be able to identify themselves and show their residence permits, border ingress stamps or other proof of them being in the country legally. In this sense it can be compared to the visa waiver which non-Americans from eligible countries needed to sign before crossing the US border. It contained questions in the line of 'Are you entering the US to commit crimes' and 'Were you active in the Nazi-party in Germany from 1932-1945'. While no criminal worth her salt would answer the former question with 'yes', it did give an additional legal handle to expel her should she be caught, as well as legal grounds to deny her access the next time she tried to enter the US.
This is not possible with 'open borders' as the police and 'border guard' have a very limited mandate to check on what they deem to be suspect individuals.
Bonjour wsc! Your understanding of the economics I can only describe as: not even wrong. No money printing is going on, governments do not buy, but emit (..sell) bonds. The real issues are competitivity differences between countries, aging populations in dire need.of immigration (say a half syrian like Steve Jobs) and some wildly inefficient top heavy administrations, also Target2 imbalances. Read up! Bonne chance en Thailande ;-)
And yes, technically countries are not buying bonds, but selling bonds to the ECB. But the ECB is acting on behalf of the countries.
Finally, I expect most immigrants that have a proper education & perhaps money would prefer to e.g. the USA. Increasing immigration as a solution to an aging population is also something that, in the long run, is not sustainable (for many reasons, including ecological). It's time with think of other solutions and perhaps Japan will be able to lead the way in this area, in the future.
You seem to assume that without the EU, european countries would no longer cooperate and trade with each other. I don't see that happening. The European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen treaty exist independently from the EU. Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, yet they trade perfectly fine with others.
The EU is simply not necessary for free trade; nor is free trade its main goal. The EU as it is right now is becoming the next Sovient Union. A undemocratic, centralised, bureaucratic superstate that strips the people from their sovereignty, independence, cultural and ethnic traditions. What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed.
Without the EU, they wouldn't have free labor mobility, limiting business hiring.
If you want your business to succeed, you better have a free and open labor pool.
This is why economies grow with open borders, because it's more labor efficient.
Can you imagine not being able to hire a specialized SQL coder, because the only one available is in Austria, and you're business is in France, and there's no labor mobility?
Or did you think labor was a commodity? And that anyone can do anyone else's job?
> Can you imagine not being able to hire a specialized SQL coder, because the only one available is in Austria, and you're business is in France, and there's no labor mobility?
In France, you can hire a SQL coder straight from Zimbabwe, South Korea, Venezuela or any other place on earth without a problem. The laws are in place and the EU has nothing to do with it.
No, you need to get annoying VISA for them because they are not European. It's not that easy.
We'll ignore for a minute that there is no shortage of SQL coder so it's really not warranted to recruiter from that far away. Unless it's a consulting company that tricks them to get minimum wage and resell them for more to make a profit.
The idea of an united europe has started from cooperation in trade with the founding of the ECSC in 1950's, thought by a handful of powerful politician and industry magnates, to solidify bonds between europeans countries and avoid any other wars. This was done without the people approving sentiment, which grew as the economic bonds were solidified.
Both sentiment of cooperation and trade are essential to the construction of a european economic aera.
Pro european laws and trade go hand in hand, you cannot have one without the other, and I believe they are the main driver of the european people's opinion above and beyond anything else - much like recent studies that showed that racism is driven first and foremost by discriminatory laws (which of course i can't find the reference right now.. if i do ill edit)
Estimate of voting booth all around. Probably gonna shift a bit until midnight but not by much and surely not enough to modify the results; and so far it seems Macron is going from 65.1 to 65.5.
Polls close at 7pm except in larger cities, but counting of votes start at this time. It's forbidden to leak the results until 8pm, at which time the sample is large enough to give a precise estimate, unlikely to move by much.
I can't deny it uplifted my mood quite a bit. The nationalist wave didn't flip France head enough, which is always good. It's just a start, a new hope.
Yeah totally. I wished for a 20%. Alas time moves quick and I couldn't act to ensure this locally. 35% is still way too high, but the worst is avoided.
The worst isn't avoided - just postponed. Le Pen's father received half the vote she did back in 2002. That means nationalist sentiment has doubled in just 15 years. If things go the way they are (which they will under Macron) we should expect a nationalist landslide in about a decade.
JMLP had a different game to play. Since, MLP spent years softening the FN image. Then wars and terrorism striked. Not long ago it was given that considering the context she would win. My opinion is that the 34% is peak nationalism and people will go back to normal parties.
The matter is not the parties. It's ideologies. FN is prospering because of the remanent xenophobic culture of France. There is always a reason for hatred, it does not fade so easily
Don't get your hopes up. The FN is probably going to get a hefty precentage in the parliamentary elections later this year. It's going to be a mess if FN and Mélenchon's party get around 20% each.
It's not that simple. The Front National is basically the same people than 10 or 20 years ago, under the reign of JM Lepen (the infamous father), but was toned down, made left-wing friendly (taking parts of the left wing ideas), mixed with a masked nationalism (blaming not on ethnicity but on religion and terrorists). Mixed in a lot of fake news and a lot of populism. It was really very confusing for many people with poor education.
On twitter, you could hardly distinguish tweets from the Front National and tweets from the far-left (Melenchon), because of the same vocabulary and many identical ideas (on "oligarchy", "unfair media coverage", and so on).
64 to 34 in a popular vote is a landslide. If this was happening in a third world country, media would be calling it "obviously manipulated". Such numbers are unheard of.
Not that much of a mauling by FN standards, when her father reached the 2nd round in 2002 he got 18%, that's a serious improvement of the party's result.
The battle was between people from anywhere - bourgeoise globalists and proletariat immigrants - and people from somewhere - the native French. The 'anywheres' have imported so many ideological allies that the result was inevitable.
Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
You didn't present your argument in meme form, not sure you're going to change any minds...
When a negative tendency must be negated, there are always people who pretend the negation is no different. It's a question of what/who not to tolerate, and why -- the answer doesn't fit in an image macro or on a bumper sticker, just as it can't be packaged in a word like "intolerance".
They believe the left not tolerating their "different opinions" cancels out their "different opinions" of not tolerating people because of their race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.
A sizeable portion of the modern Left definitely say that believing in the concept of borders and controlled immigration is intolerance – and thus unacceptable – but fail to see that it is an opinion, not a fact. This is one area where the modern Left nears actual fascists, by (conveniently for them) labelling some arbitrary opinions as “invalid”.
Another opinion is to call it intolerance to have doors and locks in homes. What, you don't tolerate trespassers there? Should that intolerance be tolerated?
You're attacking imaginary straw men. And you're throwing around words whose definition you don't understand.
Instead of stereotyping and attacking large diverse groups of people like you're attempting to do, let's talk about someone who really exists, and whose words are on the record, not a hypothetical subject for debate.
Calling Mexicans "rapists" is intolerance.
Do you tolerate people who brag about grabbing women by the "pussy"?
Is the opinion that you can get away with sexual assault if you're rich a valid opinion?
No I'm not (on both counts). But you're switching the subject... (There is nothing to be gained from this discussion, not that I didn't know it from the start.)
I'm switching the subject back to tolerance and opinions, which you raised, after you tried to divert it to attacking straw men and demonstrating that you don't know the meaning of the word "fascist".
Liberals don't think "believing in the concept of borders and controlled immigration is intolerance", they think calling Mexicans "rapists" is intolerance.
So why don't you answer my questions? Do you tolerate what Trump does without permission with his tiny little hands to women's "pussies", and do you think the opinion he expressed about being able to get away with sexual assault because he's rich is valid and tolerable?
Not allowed stances and opinions are certainly a facet of fascism, and the connection I stated earlier is sound. You may want to re-read what I wrote earlier if you think I described someone or some people as fascists.
FTR I don't have a problem with consensual sexual acts (including groping).
Again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the word "fascist".
You're saying it's "fascist" to not tolerate Trump sexually assaulting women, just because he holds the opinion (and openly brags about it) that it's ok for him to do that because he's rich, therefore we are required to respect and tolerate his opinion.
FTR, Trump was not bragging about "consensual sexual acts", he was bragging about non-consensual sexual assault, and you certainly know that. Why are you being so evasive and coy, trying to divert the conversation, when we both know exactly what I'm talking about? Address Trump's own words that are on the record, not another straw man. And please don't parrot the line about "locker room talk".
Do you tolerate Trump non-consensually grabbing women by the "pussy", and do you respect his stated opinion that he can get away with it because he's rich, and believe that's valid and tolerable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "fascist"?
Trump was quite explicit. He said "you can grab them by their pussy, they let you do anything". I don't see anything non-consensual here, he was quite explicit thay they consent.
Letting someone do something to you is NOT consenting. Are you saying that rape victims consent to sex when they let their rapists penetrate them?
Despite your quotation marks, you actually misquoted him, and left out a lot of extremely relevant context.
<s>It must take a lot of bravery to stand up and carry the water for Trump's right to commit (and brag about) sexual assault by misquoting him out of context.</s>
Read the entire literal quote in context:
"You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Please explain how it is consensual if Trump doesn't "even wait", and he thinks he can do "anything"?
Would you tell your daughter it was OK for Trump to kiss her and grab her by the pussy and anything else he wanted to do, without waiting for her consent, because he was "a star"?
I wouldn't let you or any other Trump surrogate near my daughter, because you have a lot to learn about consent. You and Trump both need to read this before kissing and grabbing any more women by the pussy without waiting for consent:
Consent, explained for Donald Trump.
Trump and his surrogates don’t seem to understand how sexual assault works.
The FBI now defines rape as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." When it comes to sexual assault, like the unwanted kissing or groping that Trump is accused of, different states have different legal definitions of "consent" — but consent is always relevant.
Legal definitions can vary, but the fundamental concept of consent is incredibly simple: Does the other person actually want you to do the things you are doing to her?
When Trump says women "let" him do "anything," he’s not describing consensual activity. He’s describing, at best, touching a woman without encountering physical resistance from her — or using his power and influence to subtly coerce her into not resisting. Coercion is not consent either, from a legal perspective or a moral one.
There are a lot of reasons victims might not physically resist or even verbally object to unwanted sexual touching. They might simply have no time to react (time that Trump said he doesn’t give them: "Just kiss. I don’t even wait"). They might be confused or in shock. They might be afraid of physical violence, emotional abuse, or other repercussions (like being fired) if they don’t comply.
That’s why brute physical force doesn’t determine whether an attack counts as sexual assault. Unwanted and nonconsensual touching does.
The people blaming the left for not tolerating intolerance don't actually think this deep, to them it's just a meme or oneliner, often coupled with exclamation marks and words like snowflake, liberal tears and cuck.
Not that I'm aware of, but that's actually orthogonal to facsism, think of Soviet labor camps, North Korea, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism.
> Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
This fits pretty well to Le Pen (and Trump if you think about it).
You should try to live for a few years in different European countries like Hungary, Romania and Germany. Most importantly see how each of these people see each other and their neighbours.
I bet that people in Switzerland have more in common (economically and culturally) than people from Bulgaria and France have for example.
I assume you know or realize that in certain European countries the medium monthly salary is 300 - 500 euros. Do you really think that say more than 10% of people from such a country could afford to buy an iPhone 7 ?
Most people are concerned with keeping their jobs and making enough money to live from month to month. Also, when they lose their job the politicians will tell them that this is because of EU policies, Soros, big banks and similar ...
I heard that the residents of Cadiz still hate Sir Francis Drake for his raid in 1587! Don't know how true that is though. Incidentally Cadiz is definitely worth a visit.
I guess the difference would be similar to NYC vs. Kentucky or Alabama vs. California. Those differences (economically and culturally) don't seem to be a too big problem for the US.
To come back to the example of Switzerland, the economically and culturally differences between a mountain farmer and a Banker in Geneva shouldn't be underrated also.
The following paragraph is an excerpt from the linked article.
Yet starting in the early 1980s, the long trend toward regional equality abruptly switched. ... In 1980, the per capita income of Washington, D.C., was 29 percent above the average for Americans as a whole; by 2013 it had risen to 68 percent above. In the San Francisco Bay area, the rise was from 50 percent above to 88 percent. Meanwhile, per capita income in New York City soared from 80 percent above the national average in 1980 to 172 percent above in 2013.
You don't understand. The cultural divide is huge and we have a long history of territorial disputes. Nation states in Europe are also relatively young and still forming. Just look at Yugoslavia.
In Europe you have huge economical and cultural differences between certain states, bad blood for historical reasons between some nations and so on.
The bad blood I can understand...they did this to us in WWI WWII and as soon as they get the chance it will happen again. It's legitimate.
The language IMO is less of an issue as who travels or works outside their country manages just fine. The new generation is doing to show their English skills in FB and Instagram.
Economical and cultural differences do exist in USA, sometimes you think you are in a different country, and quite a bit of laws are local.
Maybe you meant every young, as in under 40, educated person in Europe speaks English.
Plenty of educated people in Eastern Europe speak/read French and Russian. Until the '90s French was the main foreign language taught in countries like Romania, Bulgaria and most countries under Soviet influence. English was introduced later, usually after the fall of the Soviet Union.
It's a mixed picture though isn't it? I mean France and Germany may be fine but the same cannot be said for southern EU, which has decades long, seemingly intractable economic difficulties e.g. Mezzorgiono. I don't see that the EU has magically transformed such regions, and I suppose you can argue about the EU's ability to influence such situations, but on the other hand I don't think the Euro has helped matters.
Actually it wouldn't have been. What most people will discover (though I think most French nationals are well aware), is that the president has very little power in France unless he also controls the parliament. Which Le Pen was guaranteed not to achieve. And which will still be a long shot for Macron. Had Le Pen been elected, she would have been reduced pretty much to the role of a queen of England. With nuclear firepower but very little means to create trouble in the EU.
For context, in the 2012 election, total votes in 2nd round was 34,861,353, out of a population of 66.81M (now). I couldn't find the total voting population easily.
If Sarkozy didn't change the regime of Libya by bombing based on lies which are still under cover by main stream media, there might be no such an immigration wave caused by war and chaos. Today main stream media still try to avoid to associate their bias reports with the change in public opinion. It seems to me that main stream media is part of if not all of reasons caused such situation today.
Every "civilizing" or, in the post-colonial era, "humanitarian" intervention in the Middle East has contributed to the state we find ourselves in today. But they blame religion, anything they can other than themselves.
Most "refugees" aren't even coming from Libya or Syria. It's just free for all, everyone who isn't white is welcome in Europe for the moment, just leave the shore and NGOs will gladly pick you up and ferry to the Italian coast.
It's not. A lot of young people voted for Le Pen. People are sick and tired of Marxists destroying their countries. It's obvious they just won some time but big changes are coming.
I'm sure we're about to get blown back by the storm of articles analysing how institutional misogyny played a part in a presidential election that a woman lost ... not.
If Macron (or his campaign) had talked about Le Pen the same way Trump's troops did about Clinton, you would have a point. But I can't remember seeing any of that.
(Compare to the Republican National Convention last year where sexist merchandise insulting Clinton was everywhere. One t-shirt read: "KFC Hillary special: 2 fat thighs. 2 small breasts. Left wing.")
Nothing juicy in the emails it seems - so what possible benefit is there for the leaker? Could it be bragging? Increasing fear of hacking? Implying that Le Pen was in cahoots with the Russians?
Clearly if it was supposed to help Le Pen it didn't work.
Wouldn't surprise me if some "fake news" based on the emails was getting pushed via social media while the main media was forced to not cover anything.
If they had anything even vaguely plausible, they'd have released it earlier.
The most successful peace project on European soil of the last 1000 years can continue.
Naysayers of the EU need to learn history. It is worth every penny, every inch of inconvenience.
TWO fucking world wars were started by Europe, by nations that formed the Coal/Steel Union after 45 and now enjoy the longest, uninterrupted period of peace since, like, EVER.
The EU's economy is the largest in the world.
You don't fuck with that.
Except if you're British and can't stomach the end of your empire.
Trolling? Regardless, Firstly I'd say the EU was secondary to the US and USSR/latterly Russia in controlling war in Europe. Secondly I suppose I could lower myself to your tone by making the point that the UK is a nuclear weapons state and generally you don't f with that either, and lastly most people in the UK don't care about the empire, and the topic usually seems to be raised by people having a pop at the UK.
Not quite, but it's big. The EU is $17T. The US is $18.5T.
But I agree that you shouldn't fuck with that especially for the reasons that Le Pen and the Brexiters had.
so the peace was nothing to do with the fact the USSR had several million troops, tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and a few thousand tanks 10 miles away?
former largest economy: after brexit the EU27 economy will be smaller than the US
It might be a little too simplistic to credit the EU for 70 years of peace.
There is no major conflict directly involving two major powers for many decades (1945/WW2, or 1952/korean war if considering that China was a major power at that time, which is generous IMHO).
That's not limited to Europe, this statement is valid for the whole world.
Several factors can explain it:
* Better living conditions (far less frequent famines, less large scale epidemics, etc), mostly due to industrialization of many countries and consequently less tensions inside and between countries over resources.
* For a part, economic dependencies between countries.
* MAD, but also the realization after WW2 that a major conflict, using modern weapons, even only conventional ones, can only lead to both sides actually losing.
* Better worldwide coordination through the UN (imperfect, yet it helps).
* Better education for large parts of the world population.
* More pacifist views and reject of war.
This is still oversimplifying why there is this unprecedented peaceful period, but it shows the CECA/CEE/EU is far from being the only factor at play.
"For a part, economic dependencies between countries."
You think this happened by accident in Europe?
It was a forced development, by very smart people.
Coal/Steel union, EG/EWG, EU.
The US and USSR were duking it out all the time, from Cuba to Vietnam to Afghanistan.
Funny how people assume peace in Europe is the natural order. Holy shit, one of the key members put millions in gas chambers just years before its formation.
Europe went from a genocidal maniac (colonialism, holocaust, etc) to peace in no time.
This is quite an uncharitable view of those who are against restricting immigration as much as Le Pen would have wanted to. Although I am no proponent of neo-liberalism, I am a proponent of multiculturalism. And that doesn't necessarily carry with it "migrants thumbing their noses at the law" and "unchecked" illegal immigrants (if we are going to put legality over morality here).
HN will likely rejoice. Macron is putting a lot of faith in startups to jumpstart back the french economy. I think it's wise: France has great schools to train great engineers, but there's still this stigma that it's almost impossible to have your own tech company in France unless you're ready to deal with massive paperwork. I have no idea how true it is, but Macron clearly wants to change this mentality.
It also goes to another level. Traditionally (since the 50s), engineering in France has largely been lead by large, ambitious and state funded projects and organizations. Think for instance Concorde, TGV, EDF, INRIA, etc. I have always liked this gaullist mentality: it has benefited the majority of the population and I tend to believe it has been helpful in making France a major post WW2 superpower.
But lately it may not have worked so well: for instance, many regional airports have been built at high cost, and yet many of them are almost empty. Perhaps then, resource allocation is the problem. In this regard, Macron is influenced by the american model where eg. Bell Labs, Elon Musk, Silicon Valley behemoths, etc. decide by themselves what shall be built and the state has little to no regard in the orientations of these organizations.
We'll see. I'm glad Macron has won and hope his plan works out.
Speaking as someone who has had companies in various countries (Japan, China, Hong Kong and France). The paperwork and complexities in France are by far the worst. Even China with it's love of red tape is at least relatively well organized and not to difficult to navigate.
In France, you get to deal with organizations like the RSI and URSSAF which are incredibly incompetent, frequently make mistake, do not have phone numbers that can be called from abroad (which is extremely inconvenient when traveling for business) and have Bizantine rules.
I would never create a company again in France because the system is completely broken. I really hope that Macron follows through on solving this. I believe that it's a priority.
It seems that Trump and Brexit may have been the high water mark for the wave of nationalism sweeping the west. 2017 has seen nationalist candidates fade and underperform their polls across the EU. Trump has made less actual policy progress towards his nationalist goals than perhaps many feared/expected.
Things were quite scary a few months ago. There are still things to be concerned about going forward, but politics ebbs and flows, and for now perhaps the flood waters are receding.
208 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 244 ms ] threadHere's to hoping that Europe can continue working together and begin to reform itself, and not tear itself apart like some of our American 'allies' on the (alt-)right would like.
Lots of challenges ahead, but we wouldn't want it to be too easy now would we?
But -for me personally- I'd say it's a good thing. As I stated before, choosing Macron means keeping up with the status quo and I intend to leave Europe for Asia next year (I have an Asian girlfriend and daughter). I do realise that if Le Pen would be chosen now there would be unrest in the Economic markets, the EU, etc... So for me personally it will be a good time to just make a bit more money before leaving permanently.
In the end the choice for Macron will only delay the inevitable though. The EU is dead, it just doesn't realise it yet. The only problem is: the longer it takes for the EU to collapse, the messier it will become.
If you're certain something declines in value, all you got to do is buy Put Options
esp. if you are betring against the ECB
Nothing is dead until it is entirely dead, and the EU idea still runs strong in people. Things need to change, as Brexit and the recent problems faced by the union have shown. Now it's down to the time to reform.
I don't think Macron is choosing the status quo though, hes as much as a political outsider as Trump and I hope he will make some progress in achieving reforms.
When I see people complain about the EU it's usually about "the EU taking their sovereignty and imposing stuff on them".
So if "things are going to change" that means the EU would have to become less like the U.S. (a federal entity), and more like an aggregate of wildly different cultures and regulations (so more like the pre-EU Europe).
Is that really a good thing? And do things "need to change" that way? Or is more education necessary about why the EU needs to become more homogeneous and less heterogeneous?
I can say one thing - if EU states remain wildly different from each other in culture, language, and regulations, the EU will continue to remain a much less appealing market than the US. And it's not so much that the laws are "stricter" (like say the privacy ones), as it is about the laws being different in each country, and making it hard for a company to be compliant with all of them. And I think that means fewer options and fewer quality products for Europeans in the end (you'll be stuck with your locally-made products).
What it can't be is something in the middle, like it's now.
Further, you seem to assume that without the EU, trade between countries would somehow radically decrease, i don't see that happening. The European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen treaty exist independently from the EU. Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, yet they trade perfectly fine with others. The EU is not necessary for free trade.
PS: Feel free to downvote, but at least make an argument.
First, If we would never try what in the past has failed then we would be really in a very stagnant state. Second, the EU has not failed, the EU is still the main reason for the prosperity most of its members have gained and still continue to gain after WWII. That it has had some backlashes recently does not mean at all that it has failed.
> The EU is not necessary for free trade.
It is not. It is however necessary for a internal economic market that guarantees the free flow of capital and labor, which is much wider/different in scope than free trade. Free trade can be arranged with a few trade treaties in neo liberal style.
That is, by definition, the purpose of the European Economic Area. Not the EU.
I keep hearing this argument, but I've never heard any supporting arguments. What evidence is there that "sovereignty" is optimal at the administrative scale of modern-day nation-states and not EU-sized scales, or going the other direction, at provincial, city or district levels?
And then there are those 13 ex-colonies, now 50, which dared to want an ever closer union. They had a civil war, yes, but since then secession seems to out of the picture.
Benefits is that there are a lot to negotiate internally besides free trade agreements and it gives negotiation power in the global arena, now that there are at least 3 superpowers (USA, China, Russia to the lesser extent).
(P.S. Didn't downvote)
Sounds like you're advocating erasing the cultural and linguistic variety of the member states in favour of a common language and culture so that American companies can sell things more easily?
The EU feels out of touch, unresponsive, "undemocratic". Whether it is or not isn't the issue; it feels that way to too many people. Many people therefore feel very little emotional affinity with the EU. If the EU is going to survive, that needs to change, because it opens the door to anti-EU populists in several countries. If enough win, the EU could become a skeleton of what it is now.
Macron was and investment banker and a Minister of Economy. I suppose our definitions of outsider are really different.
The real issues are: how we organize work and social security in the global knowledge economy? How we deal with the climate change? How we deal with info ops, which is already much more destabilizing problem for western democracies than terrorism. You are right that migration is tough challenge, how we will handle increasing migration?
If you are French, all 3 are mostly nationalized.
1. http://fortune.com/2017/02/25/bannon-trump-cabinet-cpac/
If you think wars for oil in the mid-east etc. are what the establishment wants, then the scientists at the EPA are a threat to that.
If you think the establishment are Al Gore and his fellow communist hoaxers, then wrecking the EPA is an anti-elitists move.
I agree with your feeling that the system is a mess and if there are not important changes it will explode.
I'm relieved, because there was one person running who was less suited to the office than Macron, and she didn't get elected, but that's a bit different than celebrating.
Source: Am Canadian who moved to Europe 2 years ago and am constantly shocked by how racists Europeans are.
I think part of the problem is that in Canada an immigrant is considered "Canadian" as soon as they get their citizenship. People are proud of their heritage, but nobody gets to claim superiority of citizenship. Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Other countries have much more sensible immigration policies, like the USA and Australia. Or most Asian countries, for that matter.
I don't think this is fair at all. I'm of Middle Eastern stock (now living in the US) and even I was kind of shocked when I stayed near Gare du Nord in Paris (especially) and in some other parts of the city. I did not feel as if I was in Europe. It felt like a souk in Qatar. I date a French North African woman and so am acutely aware of the integration problems many (not all of course) immigrants have in France. Many old time French North Africans, who fought for normality in the French society over decades, are now finding themselves on the side of "the other" again because of unnecessary mass immigration of people who are certainly not french and secular enough like the North Africans who migrated in the 60s and 70s. New Islamic immigration is preying on 2nd and 3rd generation somewhat normalized immigrants and destroying a population that was integrated and also creating a divide among the different ethnic groups within the country.
You may consider this perspective to be racist. But I don't see how allowing racist Middle Easterners (like most people I grew up with) with homophobic tendencies (almost a given) to mass immigrate to a country is not racist itself.
> Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Why is this an issue? It is an exception to have countries like America and Canada (both of which I adore) which are based on ideals [1]. Most nations are created after bloody ethnic wars (especially in Europe). It would be wrong to force them to give up their ancestral lands. A crude proxy for seeing this is to have a look at the birthright citizenship map [2]. Only a handful of nations have jus soil (US and Canada being among them). Majority are jus sanguinis. And the trend is for ethnic countries like Germany and Ireland to go more towards jus sanguinis. Ethnic countries like Ireland and India in fact used to be jus soil and have recently moved away from that to preserve the ethnicity. So for countries built on ethnicity, why would you expect it not to be the case that one is defined by their ancestry?
[1] And yes, there are significant problems with the history of America especially with respect to the Native Americans.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_...
> Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Yeah, too many different languages, too many cultures and ages of history where Europeans ruled over each other precisely because of the ancestry and the power that went along with it. That is highly engraved in collective mind of most European countries.
Some signs that a comment is probably bad by HN's standard: (1) general claims on provocative matters; (2) pejorative 'you'; (3) using the word 'actually' about something difficult; (4) promotion of one identity over another. The more such markers in a comment, the more troll effects it has, even if the trolling is unintentional. (Most is.)
Some things that counteract these effects: nuance; empathy; personal experience.
As an European, I find it quite tasteless to be criticised by Canadians for our views on immigration, when you get the cream of the crop and we get the rabble mostly because of geographical reasons. To take an example from Turkey: you get the educated slice of society, liberal and progressive. We get the peasants that deem it normal to bury their daughters alive because they talk with boys. (This is an exaggeration, but you don't seem to mind heavy-handedness).
We don't oppose mass immigration because of the color of their skin or their religion, but because their views regarding women's rights, LGBT rights are so alien to ours, as well as because we don't actually manage to assimilate migrants fast enough to ensure our society thrives.
Even Trump publicly changed his opinion ;)
- a warmer climate
- sensible immigration policies
- a culture where people are less direct and have more respect for everyones personal space
- a smaller government, less social security policies, people take more care for one another
- lower taxes
- great food
Do you think the immigrants that come to Europe are travelling there for the same reasons?
Which are not valid, since the only good reasons are the ones you listed.
I cross every day the border. Twice a week, I cross another border which is meant to be closed from 19h to 6h (many small borders near the FR-CH do that). There is a simply locked barrier. Nothing more. This has been here for 25+ years. Of course, I've crossed "illegally" this border by bike plenty of times (its faster) and it has been very very easy (I won't even talk about all the woods around the border that haven't got a single fence). A terrorist wanting to cross a border would be very stupid to get caught.
So all this talk about how getting out of the EU is complete bullshit to me.
Back when I was a small boy, almost every month there was some bombing going on in Israel. These attacks have been greatly reduced by several measures, including the building of the wall.
As for the second par of your argument, I don't know the context but to me it seems more of a correlation than a causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Wall
It implies that foreigners need to be able to identify themselves and show their residence permits, border ingress stamps or other proof of them being in the country legally. In this sense it can be compared to the visa waiver which non-Americans from eligible countries needed to sign before crossing the US border. It contained questions in the line of 'Are you entering the US to commit crimes' and 'Were you active in the Nazi-party in Germany from 1932-1945'. While no criminal worth her salt would answer the former question with 'yes', it did give an additional legal handle to expel her should she be caught, as well as legal grounds to deny her access the next time she tried to enter the US.
This is not possible with 'open borders' as the police and 'border guard' have a very limited mandate to check on what they deem to be suspect individuals.
And yes, technically countries are not buying bonds, but selling bonds to the ECB. But the ECB is acting on behalf of the countries.
Finally, I expect most immigrants that have a proper education & perhaps money would prefer to e.g. the USA. Increasing immigration as a solution to an aging population is also something that, in the long run, is not sustainable (for many reasons, including ecological). It's time with think of other solutions and perhaps Japan will be able to lead the way in this area, in the future.
The EU is simply not necessary for free trade; nor is free trade its main goal. The EU as it is right now is becoming the next Sovient Union. A undemocratic, centralised, bureaucratic superstate that strips the people from their sovereignty, independence, cultural and ethnic traditions. What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed.
If you want your business to succeed, you better have a free and open labor pool.
This is why economies grow with open borders, because it's more labor efficient.
Can you imagine not being able to hire a specialized SQL coder, because the only one available is in Austria, and you're business is in France, and there's no labor mobility?
Or did you think labor was a commodity? And that anyone can do anyone else's job?
We aren't part of EU, but the EU is a very appealing place to work.
In France, you can hire a SQL coder straight from Zimbabwe, South Korea, Venezuela or any other place on earth without a problem. The laws are in place and the EU has nothing to do with it.
There are only a few cities with a couple of jobs for them. The USA has stuff in SF/NY mostly. France has some stuff in Paris. That's about it.
We'll ignore for a minute that there is no shortage of SQL coder so it's really not warranted to recruiter from that far away. Unless it's a consulting company that tricks them to get minimum wage and resell them for more to make a profit.
We'll also ignore that they don't speak French.
Since the polling booths are now closed (it is 8:30pm in France), these exit polls have been published. That is what the Beeb article is based on.
More importantly, at which time all booths are closed.
The matter is not the parties. It's ideologies. FN is prospering because of the remanent xenophobic culture of France. There is always a reason for hatred, it does not fade so easily
On twitter, you could hardly distinguish tweets from the Front National and tweets from the far-left (Melenchon), because of the same vocabulary and many identical ideas (on "oligarchy", "unfair media coverage", and so on).
A good analysis is here: https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
When a negative tendency must be negated, there are always people who pretend the negation is no different. It's a question of what/who not to tolerate, and why -- the answer doesn't fit in an image macro or on a bumper sticker, just as it can't be packaged in a word like "intolerance".
Another opinion is to call it intolerance to have doors and locks in homes. What, you don't tolerate trespassers there? Should that intolerance be tolerated?
Instead of stereotyping and attacking large diverse groups of people like you're attempting to do, let's talk about someone who really exists, and whose words are on the record, not a hypothetical subject for debate.
Calling Mexicans "rapists" is intolerance.
Do you tolerate people who brag about grabbing women by the "pussy"?
Is the opinion that you can get away with sexual assault if you're rich a valid opinion?
Liberals don't think "believing in the concept of borders and controlled immigration is intolerance", they think calling Mexicans "rapists" is intolerance.
So why don't you answer my questions? Do you tolerate what Trump does without permission with his tiny little hands to women's "pussies", and do you think the opinion he expressed about being able to get away with sexual assault because he's rich is valid and tolerable?
FTR I don't have a problem with consensual sexual acts (including groping).
You're saying it's "fascist" to not tolerate Trump sexually assaulting women, just because he holds the opinion (and openly brags about it) that it's ok for him to do that because he's rich, therefore we are required to respect and tolerate his opinion.
FTR, Trump was not bragging about "consensual sexual acts", he was bragging about non-consensual sexual assault, and you certainly know that. Why are you being so evasive and coy, trying to divert the conversation, when we both know exactly what I'm talking about? Address Trump's own words that are on the record, not another straw man. And please don't parrot the line about "locker room talk".
Do you tolerate Trump non-consensually grabbing women by the "pussy", and do you respect his stated opinion that he can get away with it because he's rich, and believe that's valid and tolerable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "fascist"?
Despite your quotation marks, you actually misquoted him, and left out a lot of extremely relevant context.
<s>It must take a lot of bravery to stand up and carry the water for Trump's right to commit (and brag about) sexual assault by misquoting him out of context.</s>
Read the entire literal quote in context:
"You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Please explain how it is consensual if Trump doesn't "even wait", and he thinks he can do "anything"?
Would you tell your daughter it was OK for Trump to kiss her and grab her by the pussy and anything else he wanted to do, without waiting for her consent, because he was "a star"?
I wouldn't let you or any other Trump surrogate near my daughter, because you have a lot to learn about consent. You and Trump both need to read this before kissing and grabbing any more women by the pussy without waiting for consent:
Consent, explained for Donald Trump. Trump and his surrogates don’t seem to understand how sexual assault works.
https://www.vox.com/2016/10/19/13330140/trump-consent-explai...
The FBI now defines rape as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." When it comes to sexual assault, like the unwanted kissing or groping that Trump is accused of, different states have different legal definitions of "consent" — but consent is always relevant.
Legal definitions can vary, but the fundamental concept of consent is incredibly simple: Does the other person actually want you to do the things you are doing to her?
When Trump says women "let" him do "anything," he’s not describing consensual activity. He’s describing, at best, touching a woman without encountering physical resistance from her — or using his power and influence to subtly coerce her into not resisting. Coercion is not consent either, from a legal perspective or a moral one.
There are a lot of reasons victims might not physically resist or even verbally object to unwanted sexual touching. They might simply have no time to react (time that Trump said he doesn’t give them: "Just kiss. I don’t even wait"). They might be confused or in shock. They might be afraid of physical violence, emotional abuse, or other repercussions (like being fired) if they don’t comply.
That’s why brute physical force doesn’t determine whether an attack counts as sexual assault. Unwanted and nonconsensual touching does.
> Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
This fits pretty well to Le Pen (and Trump if you think about it).
- We would gain valuable research data
and
- Get rid of a bunch of undesirables
was on the news a couple years ago. seems like it was her daddy. my bad.
As bad as EU is, eventually they will get along just fine...or a least just as United States of America do.
The difference is that in USA they speak the same language and even this way they are not as homogenous as they seem from outside.
In Europe you have huge economical and cultural differences between certain states, bad blood for historical reasons between some nations and so on.
I bet that people in Switzerland have more in common (economically and culturally) than people from Bulgaria and France have for example.
Hopefully the new generations will care more about their iPhone 68 than ancient history.
Most people are concerned with keeping their jobs and making enough money to live from month to month. Also, when they lose their job the politicians will tell them that this is because of EU policies, Soros, big banks and similar ...
To come back to the example of Switzerland, the economically and culturally differences between a mountain farmer and a Banker in Geneva shouldn't be underrated also.
The following paragraph is an excerpt from the linked article.
Yet starting in the early 1980s, the long trend toward regional equality abruptly switched. ... In 1980, the per capita income of Washington, D.C., was 29 percent above the average for Americans as a whole; by 2013 it had risen to 68 percent above. In the San Francisco Bay area, the rise was from 50 percent above to 88 percent. Meanwhile, per capita income in New York City soared from 80 percent above the national average in 1980 to 172 percent above in 2013.
[0] http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-...
The bad blood I can understand...they did this to us in WWI WWII and as soon as they get the chance it will happen again. It's legitimate.
The language IMO is less of an issue as who travels or works outside their country manages just fine. The new generation is doing to show their English skills in FB and Instagram.
Economical and cultural differences do exist in USA, sometimes you think you are in a different country, and quite a bit of laws are local.
Plenty of educated people in Eastern Europe speak/read French and Russian. Until the '90s French was the main foreign language taught in countries like Romania, Bulgaria and most countries under Soviet influence. English was introduced later, usually after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Actually it wouldn't have been. What most people will discover (though I think most French nationals are well aware), is that the president has very little power in France unless he also controls the parliament. Which Le Pen was guaranteed not to achieve. And which will still be a long shot for Macron. Had Le Pen been elected, she would have been reduced pretty much to the role of a queen of England. With nuclear firepower but very little means to create trouble in the EU.
If the current policies at the French and European level don't change, we are just winning a few years.
Macron is probably the candidate less inclined to change those policies.
Not sure if this is HN material, though.
(Compare to the Republican National Convention last year where sexist merchandise insulting Clinton was everywhere. One t-shirt read: "KFC Hillary special: 2 fat thighs. 2 small breasts. Left wing.")
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/861764728753926144
I'm speechless.
Clearly if it was supposed to help Le Pen it didn't work.
If they had anything even vaguely plausible, they'd have released it earlier.
Naysayers of the EU need to learn history. It is worth every penny, every inch of inconvenience.
TWO fucking world wars were started by Europe, by nations that formed the Coal/Steel Union after 45 and now enjoy the longest, uninterrupted period of peace since, like, EVER.
The EU's economy is the largest in the world. You don't fuck with that. Except if you're British and can't stomach the end of your empire.
Not quite, but it's big. The EU is $17T. The US is $18.5T. But I agree that you shouldn't fuck with that especially for the reasons that Le Pen and the Brexiters had.
former largest economy: after brexit the EU27 economy will be smaller than the US
There is no major conflict directly involving two major powers for many decades (1945/WW2, or 1952/korean war if considering that China was a major power at that time, which is generous IMHO).
That's not limited to Europe, this statement is valid for the whole world.
Several factors can explain it:
* Better living conditions (far less frequent famines, less large scale epidemics, etc), mostly due to industrialization of many countries and consequently less tensions inside and between countries over resources.
* For a part, economic dependencies between countries.
* MAD, but also the realization after WW2 that a major conflict, using modern weapons, even only conventional ones, can only lead to both sides actually losing.
* Better worldwide coordination through the UN (imperfect, yet it helps).
* Better education for large parts of the world population.
* More pacifist views and reject of war.
This is still oversimplifying why there is this unprecedented peaceful period, but it shows the CECA/CEE/EU is far from being the only factor at play.
You think this happened by accident in Europe? It was a forced development, by very smart people.
Coal/Steel union, EG/EWG, EU.
The US and USSR were duking it out all the time, from Cuba to Vietnam to Afghanistan.
Funny how people assume peace in Europe is the natural order. Holy shit, one of the key members put millions in gas chambers just years before its formation.
Europe went from a genocidal maniac (colonialism, holocaust, etc) to peace in no time.
All for what? Some false utopian ideal of "but muh multiculturalism"
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14286863 and marked it off-topic.
It also goes to another level. Traditionally (since the 50s), engineering in France has largely been lead by large, ambitious and state funded projects and organizations. Think for instance Concorde, TGV, EDF, INRIA, etc. I have always liked this gaullist mentality: it has benefited the majority of the population and I tend to believe it has been helpful in making France a major post WW2 superpower.
But lately it may not have worked so well: for instance, many regional airports have been built at high cost, and yet many of them are almost empty. Perhaps then, resource allocation is the problem. In this regard, Macron is influenced by the american model where eg. Bell Labs, Elon Musk, Silicon Valley behemoths, etc. decide by themselves what shall be built and the state has little to no regard in the orientations of these organizations.
We'll see. I'm glad Macron has won and hope his plan works out.
In France, you get to deal with organizations like the RSI and URSSAF which are incredibly incompetent, frequently make mistake, do not have phone numbers that can be called from abroad (which is extremely inconvenient when traveling for business) and have Bizantine rules.
I would never create a company again in France because the system is completely broken. I really hope that Macron follows through on solving this. I believe that it's a priority.
EDF => National electricity grid.
INRIA => National research center.
They are big national companies, at the intersection of massive public funding and fields that cannot be outsourced.
That's the only sort of companies that strive in the French environment.
Things were quite scary a few months ago. There are still things to be concerned about going forward, but politics ebbs and flows, and for now perhaps the flood waters are receding.