What's Happening In France?

[Spectric]

You need to look at the situation in France as part of something much bigger, the decline of the west and rise of the east. In the west we have spiraled our economies upwards in a vicous circle where cost of living keeps rising so our wages try to keep pace and in doing so have just priced ourselves out of the market. If you were looking to build white goods would you build them in Europe or France knowing that the cost of labour is high along with other business cost or get them built in the East ? This applies to our woodworking machinery, we all know that much is built in the east and not in europe so is why places like France are heading into turmoil as the people are facing high living cost, wage stagnation and see no solutions.

 

[Stan]

What's happening in France? Starmer couldn't run a bath (etc) - that's what's happening in France.

Did Starmer remember that in France, the 'C' and 'F' on the bath taps stand for 'cold' and 'freezing'? No? No wonder there are ructions.....

 

[John Brown]

I've never seen a pendulum swing too far one way. It goes against their very nature.

 

[Chris152]

You need to look at the situation in France as part of something much bigger, the decline of the west and rise of the east.

I think that's about right, and as that happens, there's a shift to the extremes as 'others' are blamed, nationalism increases, and reasonable thought goes out the window. France, UK, US, all seem to be following the same pattern. It's a weak strategy, one guaranteed to feed the decline.

 

[Vulcan]

France cannot call new Parliamentary elections until July - and Macron won't go.

I could get him to go, take his wig off in public. He’s the type that would never get over the humiliation.

 

[niemeyjt]

I could get him to go, take his wig off in public. He’s the type that would never get over the humiliation.

I more concerned for his beard

 

[BC'er]

France is now in a very precarious position with the far right threatening the very democratic principles upon which its democracy has been founded and developed since 1789.

You're worried the electorate might vote for the "wrong" people? Perhaps democracy will have to be suspended to better protect it from the voters?

 

[Chris152]

You're worried the electorate might vote for the "wrong" people? Perhaps democracy will have to be suspended to better protect it from the voters?

Absolutely hilarious.

Your quotation marks around 'wrong' suggest it can't be wrong if enough people vote for it? And if enough people vote for something, it's right?

As for protecting democracy from the voters, no idea what that means. But I would say that if democracy is to work, the voters need protection from the kind of racist, far right garbage spouted by the likes of Le Pen.

 

[mudman]

Absolutely hilarious.

Your quotation marks around 'wrong' suggest it can't be wrong if enough people vote for it? And if enough people vote for something, it's right?

As for protecting democracy from the voters, no idea what that means. But I would say that if democracy is to work, the voters need protection from the kind of racist, far right garbage spouted by the likes of Le Pen.

So how are you going to 'protect' people from making choices that you disagree with? Perhaps you could get rid of all those other political parties that are so egregiously wrong in their politics? But then what would you do with all those annoying people that don't like your one-party state and start to complain about it? Maybe you could lock them up so they can't pollute the pure minds of your followers. Hang on though, if you have a party, that implies that you have many others in government with you and that means other people that might dare to disagree with you in your very own party! The horror! So, maybe you should do away with all of them and just put yourself up there and in charge as you are the only one that has valid opinions. You could then dictate to everyone how they should think and behave. I think there's a word for that sort of person.

 

[Chris152]

So how are you going to 'protect' people from making choices that you disagree with? Perhaps you could get rid of all those other political parties that are so egregiously wrong in their politics? But then what would you do with all those annoying people that don't like your one-party state and start to complain about it? Maybe you could lock them up so they can't pollute the pure minds of your followers. Hang on though, if you have a party, that implies that you have many others in government with you and that means other people that might dare to disagree with you in your very own party! The horror! So, maybe you should do away with all of them and just put yourself up there and in charge as you are the only one that has valid opinions. You could then dictate to everyone how they should think and behave. I think there's a word for that sort of person.

Grow up.

 

[mudman]

Grow up.

Really? It's you who is advocating for the disenfranchisement of sections of society by banning anyone that disagrees with you for their own protection. Because that's what you were proposing in reality wasn't it?

 

[Chris152]

Really? It's you who is advocating for the disenfranchisement of sections of society by banning anyone that disagrees with you for their own protection. Because that's what you were proposing in reality wasn't it?

No.

 

[mudman]

So how else would you go about ensuring that "if democracy is to work, the voters need protection from the kind of people I fervently disagree with".

 

[Chris152]

So how else would you go about ensuring that "if democracy is to work, the voters need protection from the kind of people I fervently disagree with".

ffs this is tedious. If I write that paedophilia is a bad thing, is that just me 'fervently disagreeing' with paedophilia? Could there be more to the statement? Actually, don't answer, I'm not interested.

 

[mudman]

ffs this is tedious. If I write that paedophilia is a bad thing, is that just me 'fervently disagreeing' with paedophilia? Could there be more to the statement? Actually, don't answer, I'm not interested.

Well I am going to answer. Two completely different things, I don't know how you managed to make that leap of logic. Probably the old deflection argument to move away from a position you can't defend. What I am interested in is how you would 'protect' voters from someone you disagree with but a demonstrably larger percentage of the population agree with.

 

[Sideways]

Stop this arguing from here gentlemen. No last words. No apologies either side. The readers will form their own judgements on what you have written.