Thank you
Macron
I think itâs the safest bet. And he can (maybe?) talk to PutinâŚ.
For sure. Le Pen promised a lot of financial aid to the working class and got a lot of votes, but enough people saw through the crazy. I wonder if the Western world has finally started to wake up from the autocratic threat to democracy these days.
Wishful thinking, they are more interested in being right than having any type of critical thought.
1 Like
Le Pen did get 8% more of the vote than she did 5 years ago. Another interesting aspect is that the 18-35 demographic went for Le Pen.
Everyone likes to link right wing candidates with Trump, but that misses a lot of the nuance. Macron is a globalist and Le Pen is a nationalist, but Macron is much tougher on radical Islam than many European leaders, for example. In addition to the economy, immigration is a huge concern for folks across Europe, just like it is here.
Yes, there are many faults with macron as well. He seemed to pivot some after his first election negatively (you would say positively).
Genocide is a much bigger issue than immigration although perhaps one leads to the other.
Didnât copy your other quote on age demographics, but that is interesting and very scary at same time. Perhaps the autocrats are winning after all.
The over 60 vote went 70% for Macron. France has a guaranteed pension for folks starting at age 62. Those who are older and comfortable will tend to vote with the status quo.
The far left and far right candidates increased their vote totals from previous elections.
1 Like
Can you tell me, in your words, what a globalist is?
I second and had same question.
Not Indiana but had this discussion with you in the past.
A globalist is a person who minimizes national sovereignty and national borders in favor of multinational (eventually borderless) arrangements. Itâs the centralization of government in an effort to concentrate power.
While the standard definition is always articulated in a financial sense, globalization is really a political movement, and not a financial one.
You tend to make up your own definitions to words.
How does one âminimizeâ national sovereignty and I donât believe I see a government or a party within any government attempting border-less countries. Also, is there a government in existence that doesnât have centralized authority? In fact, weâre a federalist concept, but even that has centralized authority in many parts. Do you have an example of the decentralization government?
Do you have any evidence of this? Again, Dictionaries exist for a reason and they have definitions in them.
Lol- our own southern border.
The European Union
The North American Union
The UN
All of these Unions are designed to transfer national sovereignty to a regional sovereignty. Look at the way Brussels penalizes and taxes EU nations at will.
America is a decentralized government. The Federalist system was designed to de-concentrate power from one tyranny to multiple tyrannies. While I will agree that the Federal Government has become too strong (much of that having its roots in the 17th amendment), weâre still the most decentralized government system in the world. At any point a State COULD secede if they really wanted to.
Yea- the Unions that exist themselves are the Evidence. The UN isnât a financial system. Itâs a system of global justice/law creation and a quasi military force.
The EU isnât a financial system, itâs a government with the power to legislate, tax, and the potential to raise an army if it so chose.
What about our own southern border, specifically?
How do any of these negatively impact our national sovereignty?
The European Union - We arenât in the EU
The North American Union - a theoretical concept. There exists no official North American Union. One hasnât even been proposed
The UN - How does the UN take away our sovereignty?
We arenât in the EU.
Not according to actual data.
Do you want to repeal the 17th Amendment?
Not according to history and law.
In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature â even if ratified by a majority of Texans â were âabsolutely null.â
âThe answer is clear,â Scalia wrote. âIf there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, âone Nation, indivisible.â)â
Thatâs illogical. The fact that there is something called a European Union doesnât mean the definition of globalist or globalism is political rather than financial. Again, there is literally nothing about âglobalistâ or âglobalismâ in any of their charters. There are, however, clear definitions of globalism within the Dictionary and Wikipedia and a range of other areas, which contradict your personal definition of globalist/globalism/globalization.
Finally, in no part does globalization, in any definition, relate to centralization of government. The irony is a centralization of power directly contradicts the concept OF globalization. Youâre a hoot, dude
It appears, as usual, nearly everything you believe is easily disproven. However, you seem to hold yourself in such high regard, a level of narcissism rarely seen, that you believe you create your own definitions to words and ideas.
Your statement was clear -
Yet, there are definitions of globalization relating to economics, cultural, political, etc. Your statement was that globalization is a political movement, not a financial one. The official one is quite vague and relates to nearly anything, it appears.