Le Pen’s ‘Save Democracy’ rally after guilty verdict falls short of expectations
-
Is it a coincidence that europe always bans the favorite candidate? Thats very democracy
Letting corrupt and convicted leaders doesn't really sound like the better option.
-
I mean "the most likely to win". How other way you have to interpret this word in this context?
The most likely to win should be able to gather more than ok people
She's not the favorite candidate in France.
-
Is it a coincidence that europe always bans the favorite candidate? Thats very democracy
That's a fallacy, Democracy doesn't mean "let any elected moron lead," it means "leaders should encourage and further the democratic process." A Manchurian candidate is pretty much the antithesis of Democracy.
I'm not gonna say anything about Le Pen because I do my best to intentionally detach from shitheads beyond checking their legal status, but as a Romanian, I can say that Georgescu's removal was a win for that very Democracy you're talking about.
-
Is it a coincidence that europe always bans the favorite candidate? Thats very democracy
-
According to organizers of Sunday’s rally, some 5,000 to 8,000 people were expected to attend the event, soberly titled “Save Democracy,” with a fleet of 20 buses and nine mini-buses to bring in more supporters. During his speech, National Rally President Jordan Bardella claimed 10,000 people were present.
Same MO as when they took out kremlin's candidate in Romania. Because nothing says "save democracy" like a manufactured protest with paid party members and acolytes.
If only Russian bots could show up to protests
-
Letting corrupt and convicted leaders doesn't really sound like the better option.
What if people want to elect corrupted and convicted leaders? Isnt their right to choose?
-
That's a fallacy, Democracy doesn't mean "let any elected moron lead," it means "leaders should encourage and further the democratic process." A Manchurian candidate is pretty much the antithesis of Democracy.
I'm not gonna say anything about Le Pen because I do my best to intentionally detach from shitheads beyond checking their legal status, but as a Romanian, I can say that Georgescu's removal was a win for that very Democracy you're talking about.
Democracy is when a court decides people voted wrong
-
If you have trouble understanding this term in a simple phrase as that maybe its a waste of time to discuss such matters with you
-
What if people want to elect corrupted and convicted leaders? Isnt their right to choose?
Most of europe's democracys don't have an option to elect leaders. We elect political parties, and the french can still vote for the party of Le Pen.
I don't see a real political issue there, as long as the courts can be trusted.
-
Democracy is when a court decides people voted wrong
And that's an obtuse and edgy fallacy. You do realise this wasn't about the people "voting wrong," but about the candidates themselves being demonstrated to have functioned based on false pretenses and hidden agendas while having Putin's hand up their arses, right? Convincing people to vote based on lies and mass manipulation is about as far from anything to have ever been considered even marginally democratic. The result itself, thus, is undemocratic.
What you're proposing is that Democracy should be as a herd of sheep throwing themselves off a cliff because, hey! The first one did it!
Cheap bait, m8. Like, really cheap, those worms are flaky...
-
Is it a coincidence that europe always bans the favorite candidate? Thats very democracy
There are actual laws that Marine LePen broke and the consequence of that is that she now isn't allowed to run, what part of that do you not get? Don't bother answering, it'll be typical Russian bot gibberish and I really don't care
-
Most of europe's democracys don't have an option to elect leaders. We elect political parties, and the french can still vote for the party of Le Pen.
I don't see a real political issue there, as long as the courts can be trusted.
"as long as the courts can be trusted."
There you go
-
And that's an obtuse and edgy fallacy. You do realise this wasn't about the people "voting wrong," but about the candidates themselves being demonstrated to have functioned based on false pretenses and hidden agendas while having Putin's hand up their arses, right? Convincing people to vote based on lies and mass manipulation is about as far from anything to have ever been considered even marginally democratic. The result itself, thus, is undemocratic.
What you're proposing is that Democracy should be as a herd of sheep throwing themselves off a cliff because, hey! The first one did it!
Cheap bait, m8. Like, really cheap, those worms are flaky...
Thats a lot of words to say you are in favor of a dictatorship
-
There are actual laws that Marine LePen broke and the consequence of that is that she now isn't allowed to run, what part of that do you not get? Don't bother answering, it'll be typical Russian bot gibberish and I really don't care
And what if the majority of the people want to be ruled by someone who broke a law? Isnt their right to choose?
-
And what if the majority of the people want to be ruled by someone who broke a law? Isnt their right to choose?
Of all the asinine arguments that could be made that is about the worst one I have heard
-
Of all the asinine arguments that could be made that is about the worst one I have heard
Thats not an answer
-
And what if the majority of the people want to be ruled by someone who broke a law? Isnt their right to choose?
It looks to me like enough people want you to shut up, yet you won't.
-
Thats not an answer
If you have a problem with it, go talk to the French government and start a petition to change it. There's no point arguing here about it.
-
And what if the majority of the people want to be ruled by someone who broke a law? Isnt their right to choose?
The detailed and nuanced answer would take into account the exact crime, but the short answer: No.
A democracy must guard itself against usurpation by demagogues that rally people through deceitful rhetorics and appeals to passion with the intent to break the order of that democracy. That order, among other things, contains laws restraining what politicians are and aren't allowed to do. A candidate with clear disregard for these laws is a threat to that order, such that this democracy must protect itself by not allowing them to hold powers they are likely to use irresponsibly.
Put differently, someone who shows clear contempt for democratic rules is no longer entitled to democratic rights either. Not the distinction: democratic rights doesn't mean human rights.
-
And what if the majority of the people want to be ruled by someone who broke a law? Isnt their right to choose?
Sure, but then they will first have to elect representatives to parliament who will make it legal to become president even if you are corrupt. It is of course not possible to first choose representatives in parliament that make it illegal to become president if you are corrupt and then choose a corrupt president.
