French presidential election.

[Buzzer]

If she didn't want to be associated with her father she should have started a new party without all the baggage the Front Nationale carries.

If Nick Griffin's successor came out stating he/she was cleaning up the BNP and we should all vote for them as the party of British nationalism, would people be happy to ignore everything the BNP has historically stood for?

Their base is toxic and their core rotten. You can't brush that away

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

My view too.

 

[nicko31]

She speaks well, is patriotic and wants the best for France. I have also heard her speak and can not find anything wrong with her views.

Take a look at her representatives, a pretty racist lot. But to be honest France is pretty racist compared to Britain

 

[Colossal Squid]

Would all of those things apply to Sinn Fein?

Pretty much, yes.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[knocky1]

I would currently define far right as a doctrine that is so against globalisation that all far right parties, against said globalisation, all link together globally to enforce a global national socialist agenda.

Sad times.

 

[knocky1]

I would currently define far right as a doctrine that is so against globalisation that all far right parties, against said globalisation, all link together globally to enforce a global national socialist agenda.

Sad times.

This is illustrated by the interest on here by the brexiteers and racists (not putting them together as I understand not all are) in a French Presidential outcome.

 

[studio150]

Hello, you back again, sh1t stirring and cosying up to your mates.
Firstly i have stated on the other thread that i am not replying to studio 150, i might get more PM's if i do.
So i believe the vote is rigged because now the field is narrowed down the ousted parties will (like you and your mates) just gang up on Le Pen.....was blatantly obvious what the outcome of the first round would be, and predicted what would happen in the next round.
This tired old "soulman does not answer questions" has been aired many times, just admit you do not agree with my opinions or answers, this becomes apparent when you can not accept the result of a democratic vote, and just keep whining it's not fair.

How is that evidence of rigging, if it occurs it is just tactical voting, or are you also saying that the forthcoming UK election is rigged

 

[dingodan]

I would define far-right as a party committed to very big government, Statist, a command economy and underpinned with nationalist policies that are deliberately discriminatory. Just my view but I think a lot of people call Trump far-right because they consider him to be racist and far-right/ racist become interchangeable.

I think it's impossible to be a libertarian, which I know you are, and also be described as far-right. They're incompatible.

I have noticed that "far right" and "racist" are considered interchangeable by many people, that's why I ask the question really. Is any political viewpoint interchangable with "racist" or is that just an easy way of demonizing people with a different view?

As far as I can tell my politics are of the right, I don't believe in big government, that's a leftist position, or a command economy, also leftist, and I'm not a statist, again, a leftist idea (or rather has proponents on both the left and the right).

As for "nationalist policies that are deliberately discriminatory", I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, do you mean the idea that, for example, the French government should treat French citizens different from non-citizens? If that is what you mean, doesn't a government have responsibilty for and an obligation to it's own citizens, beyond that which it could be seen as having to everyone else? If you meant something else, sorry.

 

[Buzzer]

I would currently define far right as a doctrine that is so against globalisation that all far right parties, against said globalisation, all link together globally to enforce a global national socialist agenda.

Sad times.

I think you're on a slippery slope if you just define it in terms of anti-globalisation. All sorts of political views and parties fundamentally opposed to far-right politics will get lumped into the pot. You're also kind of taking the view that if you regard the far-right as anti-democratic force to be feared and fought then globalisation must necessarily be good thing.

 

[knocky1]

I think you're on a slippery slope if you just define it in terms of anti-globalisation. All sorts of political views and parties fundamentally opposed to far-right politics will get lumped into the pot. You're also kind of taking the view that if you regard the far-right as anti-democratic force to be feared and fought then globalisation must necessarily be good thing.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I think far right "Nazis" are against globalisation but want to link globally.

 

[Buzzer]

I have noticed that "far right" and "racist" are considered interchangeable by many people, that's why I ask the question really. Is any political viewpoint interchangable with "racist" or is that just an easy way of demonizing people with a different view?

As far as I can tell my politics are of the right, but I don't believe in big government, that's a leftist position, or a command economy, also leftist, and I'm not a statist, again, a leftist idea (or rather has proponents on both the left and the right).

As for "nationalist policies that are deliberately discriminatory", I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, do you mean the idea that, for example, the French government should treat French citizens different from non-citizens? If that is what you mean, doesn't a government have responsibilty for and an obligation to it's own citizens, beyond that which it could be seen as having to everyone else? If you meant something else, sorry.

My words are woolly because I'm trying to be as general as possible, and probably failing. You get far-right parties who say that they aren't being hateful when they say that multiculturalism doesn't work and the best solution is each race to live separately but respecting and trading with each other. I kind of get what they mean and if they truly believe that then I suppose they could argue it's unfair to call them bigots. What they can't deny though is that their views are racist.

 

[dingodan]

Maybe you misunderstood me. I think far right "Nazis" are against globalisation but want to link globally.

Didn't the Nazis wanted to unite Europe and then the world under the banner of National Socialism? I'm pretty sure Hitler was a globalist, he just wanted to use force, where todays globalists want to use incrementalism

 

[Hampster Gull]

I've heard Le Pen speak afew times and I didn't find anything wrong with what she said, she seemed pretty sensible.

I know her dad was considered racist and the FN is also seen in that light, but can anyone tell me what she has said which is so outrageous?

I did a quick google search just now, and I saw loads of "guilty by association" points, and the usual accusations of racism because she wants to control immigration, but is there anything which she has said which is actually worthy of all the hate?

Genuine question, she has come across well to me when I have listened to her, but I may have missed something.

History has proven that everyone has a responsibility to try and see beyond public statements, to make a personal judgement on the person running for public office.

 

[knocky1]

My words are woolly because I'm trying to be as general as possible, and probably failing. You get far-right parties who say that they aren't being hateful when they say that multiculturalism doesn't work and the best solution is each race to live separately but respecting and trading with each other. I kind of get what they mean and if they truly believe that then I suppose they could argue it's unfair to call them bigots. What they can't deny though is that their views are racist.

They are ignorant of human migration since year dot, bless their little nationalistic hearts.

 

[Buzzer]

This is illustrated by the interest on here by the brexiteers and racists (not putting them together as I understand not all are) in a French Presidential outcome.

A bit unfair. Anyone who is politically-motivated enough to call themselves a Brexiteer will almost certainly also be interested in European politics and the possibility of another major country leaving the EU.

 

[Buzzer]

They are ignorant of human migration since year dot, bless their little nationalistic hearts.

I agree. I said I can see where there argument is coming from but as you point out, it's completely flawed.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Anyone who is politically-motivated enough to call themselves a Brexiteer will almost certainly also be interested in European politics and the possibility of another major country leaving the EU.

Why?

 

[dingodan]

My words are woolly because I'm trying to be as general as possible, and probably failing. You get far-right parties who say that they aren't being racist when they say that multiculturalism doesn't work and the best solution is each race to live separately but respecting and trading with each other. I kind of get what they mean and if they truly believe that then I suppose they could argue it's unfair to call them bigots. What they can't deny though is that their views are racist.

Well I've never heard that, that's essentially global segregation. The impression I get is that people are against policies which encourage large numbers of people to relocate to wealthier countries because those countries can often struggle to integrate and take care of those kinds of numbers, especially if there are significant cultural differences involved. - This seems to me to be true, do you think I'm racist?

 

[Buzzer]

Why?

Because to be a Brexiteer is to have a passionate interest in European politics and to be opposed to the EU.

 

[dingodan]

History has proven that everyone has a responsibility to try and see beyond public statements, to make a personal judgement on the person running for public office.

So how have you judged Le Pen, if not by her words?

Genuinely interested.

 

[Bry Nylon]

Not a question if the EU will collapse now - just a question of when.

Had it remained true to being simply a common trading market it could have flourished. But the arrogance of the unelected leaders to attempt to impose a political and an economic union on sovereign states would always end in tears.

First UK, next France. The house of cards is collapsing...