|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 14:57:06 GMT
I believe that it is sort of fumobici's point: both parties are equally bad even though the putative figurehead of the Democratic party generally looks marginally better than the other person. The strategy of the refuseniks (I have never used that word in my entire life -- sorry, fumo! ) is basically the same one that I used for many years with my own vote. In other words, if you let things get bad enough due to the appalling choices of the majority, people might finally come to their senses some day and vote for the correct candidates. In my own case, the rise of global fascism/extremism has begun to frighten me more than just electing a wishy washy candidate under the influence of the wrong people. When the alternative is a truly evil person (Trump, Le Pen, Wilders, Hofer, Orban...) taking power, all other factions need to unite to block that person rather than just shooting blanks in every direction.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Jan 15, 2017 15:01:03 GMT
Correct me, please, if I'm mistaken...Trump has filled his cabinet with billionaires, oligarchs, racists, bigots, misogynists, nearly all of them are rich-beyond-belief old white males. What is the difference, then, between the two major parties? Mostly social policy. Now, largely the same cartoon villain gazillionaires do own and control both parties to ensure no re-distributive economic policies are ever allowed to threaten their respective obscene wealth piles, but there do exist real differences on issues to do with social issues that the oligarchs are divided on, or simply don't care much about. The main thing is to keep the rich getting richer and more powerful and the poor getting poorer and less powerful, that much both parties are in lockstep agreement on. But there is a lot of social policy space between the Ds and the Rs, some of it important and substantive, and some of it probably just cynical branding exercises.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 15:12:20 GMT
I'm intrigued and taken aback by the idea of a German-French confederation. I don't think I've ever heard such a thing proposed before. Would any other countries be invited to join? I've also toyed with the idea of opening borders--if trade in goods and services are free to cross those borders, why not labor as well? But I think the opening would have to be negotiated bilaterally as two-way for the idea to be fair. That is, that any nation we agreed to open borders with and fully welcome immigrants from must likewise open their own borders to anyone wishing to go in the opposite direction and to give them full rights as residents or citizens in turn. I bet a lot of Europeans would move South if all institutional barriers to doing so were removed and they could enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizenship in their new homes. No passports, no visas, no work permits, no residency permissions, no restrictions on buying or owning properties or businesses, full voting and political rights. It might be nice. I do doubt either side's governments would welcome the disruption that would inevitably ensue however. Yes, back in the original proposal by Adenauer, the whole point was to invite other countries to join. Even though the ECSC came into existence the very next year with the original six countries of the Common Market, probably only Italy would have been immediately interested in fusion for a very simple reason: the Benelux countries are all monarchies and would have found it unthinkable at the time. As for open borders, thank god we have it in the European Union now (and too bad for the United Kingdom!). "No passports, no visas, no work permits, no residency permissions, no restrictions on buying or owning properties or businesses" -- those exist already. As for voting rights, all EU citizens have them for the European elections and many for municipal elections and some countries have allowed all resident aliens to vote in local elections (not France, though). That is the sort of promise that the left wing in France makes every time (Mitterrand did it, Hollande did it...), but they never follow through after consulting the opinion polls. Without a revolution like in the good old days (1789, 1917), there is no way to use a steamroller for authentic and rapid change. All you can do is chip away at the old stuff little by little. Extremely frustrating -- just look at the fact the Guantanamo was not closed as promised.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jan 15, 2017 19:57:12 GMT
between the Ds and the Rs What are they?
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Jan 15, 2017 20:13:36 GMT
Sorry, Democrats and Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jan 15, 2017 21:20:13 GMT
Right. I should have known that.
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Jan 16, 2017 8:29:03 GMT
Come on Mark, concentrate.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jan 16, 2017 13:47:15 GMT
Sorry Mick. I was looking out the window at the girls doing PE.
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Jan 16, 2017 14:16:09 GMT
(send some pictures)
|
|
|
Post by mossie on Jan 16, 2017 15:16:22 GMT
and I was thinking "who is lucky PE"
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jan 16, 2017 16:06:03 GMT
Filthy minds, the pair of you.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 16, 2017 21:58:21 GMT
Finally getting back here, fumobici, and happy to see that we've come full circle & are mostly in agreement. I did thoroughly enjoy the dialogue, which I feel was civilized enough to be considered friendly, and feel that I've learned things, so thanks for that. I also greatly appreciated your laying out in black and white our country's two parties as they now stand, just because it so badly needed to be said. A few points: I don't think that you ever intended to enable Trump, but as should be obvious by now, I feel that every disgruntled Sanders supporter who sat out the election or voted for Stein was one less vote to be counted against Trump. That said, I also understand the position that totting up votes for Clinton appears as tacit support for her and for the Democrats in their present incarnation. Still .......... This morning I discussed Greenwald with a politically astute friend of mine who is also a big fan of Greenwald because, as she said, he is "balanced". However, she also agreed that he is an essayist and that the piece you linked is an essay. And there the problem lies for me. You, knowing Greenwald's background and previous history, feel secure he is not making things up and you know going in that you are on the same page politically. Fine, but my problem with him is the rhetoric, because it essentially means that he winds up preaching to the choir. It's my belief that the only way you can sway the misguided or consciously ignorant person to a balanced point of view is with pure facts. Just as you or I automatically reject anything that smacks of right-wing ranting, a fence-sitter who genuinely wants to know more will pass Greenwald by in search of good old bald facts. Admittedly, that may be projection on my part. If the pig-eyed piece of shit actually does assume office, something I continue to hope won't happen, I will try to take what solace I can from your list of "meager upsides", so thanks for that as well. I'm also very happy to see that because of Kerouac's engagement in the conversation, I learned of the proposed fusion of France & Germany back in 1957 & am hoping to learn more about that. Intriguing!
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Jan 17, 2017 8:46:29 GMT
Finally getting back here, fumobici, and happy to see that we've come full circle & are mostly in agreement. I did thoroughly enjoy the dialogue, which I feel was civilized enough to be considered friendly, and feel that I've learned things, so thanks for that. I also greatly appreciated your laying out in black and white our country's two parties as they now stand, just because it so badly needed to be said. A few points: I don't think that you ever intended to enable Trump, but as should be obvious by now, I feel that every disgruntled Sanders supporter who sat out the election or voted for Stein was one less vote to be counted against Trump. That said, I also understand the position that totting up votes for Clinton appears as tacit support for her and for the Democrats in their present incarnation. Still .......... This morning I discussed Greenwald with a politically astute friend of mine who is also a big fan of Greenwald because, as she said, he is "balanced". However, she also agreed that he is an essayist and that the piece you linked is an essay. And there the problem lies for me. You, knowing Greenwald's background and previous history, feel secure he is not making things up and you know going in that you are on the same page politically. Fine, but my problem with him is the rhetoric, because it essentially means that he winds up preaching to the choir. It's my belief that the only way you can sway the misguided or consciously ignorant person to a balanced point of view is with pure facts. Just as you or I automatically reject anything that smacks of right-wing ranting, a fence-sitter who genuinely wants to know more will pass Greenwald by in search of good old bald facts. Admittedly, that may be projection on my part. If the pig-eyed piece of shit actually does assume office, something I continue to hope won't happen, I will try to take what solace I can from your list of "meager upsides", so thanks for that as well. I'm also very happy to see that because of Kerouac's engagement in the conversation, I learned of the proposed fusion of France & Germany back in 1957 & am hoping to learn more about that. Intriguing! Bixa, I do wish you'd get off the fence about your views of the new President...
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Jan 17, 2017 8:46:59 GMT
Filthy minds, the pair of you. We're of an age when that's all we can do.........
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Jan 17, 2017 13:20:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 18:46:08 GMT
Is that the British version of putting one's head in the sand when the subject gets ugly?
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Jan 18, 2017 8:35:37 GMT
The snooker match was Trump v Fu but Fu won so Trump will have to return to being a President.
|
|
|
Post by chexbres on Jan 18, 2017 8:52:41 GMT
Putin says "our girls (prostitutes) are the best in the business". He said that he has better things to do than follow American billionaires around to see what they are up to. He also says "he has never met Trump." But there are many photos to the contrary...
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jan 18, 2017 9:07:30 GMT
Putin is showing his class here, saying that Russian prostitutes are the best in the business. It must be all that practice of hanging around hotels looking for foreign businessmen during the Soviet era and working the mafiosi since 1991.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jan 18, 2017 12:04:54 GMT
Well, I'm sure that their seductive skills may have aided Putin's career both as an intelligence agent in the Soviet era and his post-USSR career path.
We also know of Trump's fondness for Slavic beauties...
Though I'd rather see Trump undone by something more relevant to his phony populist "concern for the little guy".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 12:50:03 GMT
Today's editorial cartoon in my newspaper shows Trump lamenting in Putin's arms and saying "nobody loves me." Putin replies, "That's not true. How about a golden shower?"
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 18, 2017 14:02:06 GMT
Though I'd rather see Trump undone by something more relevant to his phony populist "concern for the little guy". Exactly! He so needs to be hoisted on his own petard. Maybe his voters might reflect and learn from that. Ha.
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Jan 18, 2017 16:12:24 GMT
Similar to l'Alliance Franco-Allemande and not very well known, De Gaulle (Le Grand Charles) had said that Walloons would have been welcomed in France should they have asked. It is now considered that between 1/3 and half of the Walloons would prefer to be French than Walloons should Belgium explode (Belgie barst ! leitmotiv of the NVA, the strongest party in Flanders). Here a nice link about it (only works in french) fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattachisme
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jan 18, 2017 17:27:12 GMT
But then they couldn't say septante any more...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 18:02:17 GMT
They most certainly could. My grandmother from the Vosges continued to say septante for much of her life, as well as other regionalisms. Frankly, I have even learned to say 'huitante' when I visit Lausanne even though the Swiss Romands say 'quatre-vingt'. European French speakers are not as militant as our Québécois friends.
Yesterday on television there was a discussion on what you put your groceries in -- there are at least 5 different terms in France depending on the region -- sac, sachet, poche, pochon, cornet, and there are even some odd areas that use the term nylon. This was brought on by the fact that southwest France has finally won its battle to get its term for pains au chocolat put in the Larousse dictionary. In the southwest, everybody calles these things chocolatines. The Robert dictionary has known of chocolatines for years.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jan 18, 2017 18:07:04 GMT
Last time I asked for a chocolatine in Paris, the saleswoman sniggered. She knew what it was though.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jan 18, 2017 18:23:33 GMT
Interestingly enough, 'chocolatine' is the more common term in Québec (though pain au chocolat is also used). K2, did it occur to you that I might also have been joking?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 18:46:42 GMT
K2, did it occur to you that I might also have been joking? Yes, I know that, but I felt that it was not immediately obvious to many other casual readers here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 18:51:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Jan 18, 2017 21:30:54 GMT
Thanks for droppin' Tony's Roma joint here liz I don't know about how hard Bourdain worked to get Il Duce into that piece, seemed a little heavy handed but other parts were great too. Anthony's too much like guys I've known well, so I kind of feel I'm onto his bag of tricks. Abel Ferrara's cameo as himself was quite believable.
|
|