I felt a swelling of Dutch/European pride listening to Geert Wilder's Speech to Turkey

You're misunderstanding. I'm not using "Nationalist" to describe all anti-globalists. I am saying that Nationalism is inherently an obstruction to Globalism.

Not all Rectangles are Squares but all Squares are Rectangles. Make sense?

Anyway...

Will respond more later when I have the time.

 

From what little I've seen and heard, I wouldn't describe Macron as a moderate so much as a globalist. I'm sure he's moderate within certain spectrums mind you, but in terms of this spectrum not so much. I could be wrong though.


As far as nazis... this whole line of reasoning feels like sophistry to me. There are many who are (or were/associated with people who were) pro-**** in the globalist movement as well. Juncker is the son of a **** war hero. Soros was a collaborator for the nazis. The Rockefellers were involved with the nazis as well. And so on.

Yet even if those connections are still influencing those people and their associated organizations and political aims... Even if those facts have a current impact on things...

It would not mean that anyone supporting those people or their organizations are fans of nazis.


Mostly I think a lot of Americans that support them see these people and their parties as being anti-globalist... and support them on that basis... I doubt most even know the history of these parties, or if they do believe there is a solid influence from that history to present day... or maybe even dismiss it as globalist propaganda, I dunno.

I mean, the majority of people eligible to vote in the US didn't vote at all, IIRC. It was less than 50% turnout this last election wasn't it?

 

@Ohmin you don't find it a little bit MORE suspicious when a **** starts a political party that shares or outright copies many of the ideals and arguments the nazis used?

 

Ah thanks @Sokolov , I had flipped the numbers (was thinking of % that didn't vote as being the % that did). Let this be a lesson, always double check graphs and memory before posting things.

To an extent sure, but I honestly don't know anything about the Austria and whether or not the US was "dismayed" by it's outcome, so it's hard to comment on it. That said again it's not that much different than (only some) globalists either. But it becomes easy to lump people together because one ideology is shared even if the others aren't.

I mean it's somewhat a similar argument to why people are against specifically Planned Parenthood even if they aren't particularly against abortion in general. PP was founded by a racist eugenicist (and friend of Hitler, nazis are everywhere!) designed to specifically reduce the population of Black people (and probably other minorities as well, but the founder was noted as being focused on African-Americans at least).

At present, the ethnicity that most makes use of abortions and the like (per capita) is Black people, so it has arguably been their success. That said however I doubt very much that the majority of PP supporters (including people working there) are doing it because they want to cull the Black population.


In any event, my point stands, someone supporting something connected to nazis doesn't make them a **** lover. A lot of people that were supporting these nationalist movements were doing so because they saw it as a way to try and weaken the EU, regardless of other beliefs spouted (either in spite of or in ignorance of, though I'm sure some were into it fully).

 

Voter participation was actually higher in the 1840's-1910's,



Of course, the voter pool was smaller (no women for example until 1920), but none the less...

Also way lower in the early 1800's, likely because of a sudden expansion with the change to voter rights in 1792 and other historical events, kind of interesting to think about.


That said, I think this is less to do with the EC existing in general and more to do with two-party dominance. What qualifies as a "swing state" would change drastically with more viable parties contending.

 

you need to back this up with some sources.

coming to the conclusion that poor people lack acces to the means to birth control and maybe the r-tarded should not have babies is quite different from sending aformentioned to gas chambers.

you make it sound like she forced poor black people to have abortions.

most of the information about her on the internet seems to be ABORTIONS BAD EVIL **** WOMAN vareity but wikipedia has this:

can we just agree:

• there are many nationalistic americans on the internet.
• nationalistic americans are interested in nationalists in elections in europe.
• on places such as youtube these americans use terms such as 'sand ******' and other derogatory terms for ethnic groups other than white.
• nationalistic parties in europe are STRONGLY tied to nazism, antisemitism & holocaust denial.
• nationalist parties use imagery, propaganda, and arguments reminiscent of those used by parties that featured nazism.

I will agree that:

• not all connections are noteworthy.
• nationalism has flavours of anti-globalism.
• most americans do not understand politics ... in Europe.

 

Oh please.

"Things weren't the same in the 1800's, other than the EC, so we shouldn't use that as a point of comparison between voter involvement when discussing the impact of the EC!"

You're statement was that the US would never really get much of a different voter turnout because the EC exists... but clearly the numbers in the 1800's show that isn't correct, but you want to throw it out because there are other factors involved?

That's my entire point. Other factors are involved. To blame the EC for disenfranchising votes is to ignore all the other factors leading to that. The number of swing states, or at least "close" states has changed as you yourself noted. That change didn't happen because of the EC.

You're trying to throw out evidence that shows other factors involved in voter turnout because it shows other factors involved in turnout. That's nuts.

This is a fair point.

Except that's still true at the Macro scale, whether the EC exists or not. If the entire country almost always votes a certain way you get "disenfranchised" when you lose.

If you think (for example) Republicans in California feel bad about their voting situation, think about how every other Republican would feel when California's population of Democratic voters makes their individual state (maybe not Texas, but then see the same point in reverse) obsolete entirely.

The point of having more viable parties is that it would be much less likely for any given party to dominate a given state or region. Sure it might still happen, but it would be reduced.

But this is highly off topic anyway, so I'll say no more in this thread (I will of course read and consider anything further you have to say).

 

The EC doesn't really create them (though you could easily argue it encourages the practice), the states do that via determining how their votes are allocated, that is, if a state wants to be a swing state, they go with "winner takes all". Removal of "winner takes all" would help quite a bit in regards to the swing-state issue.

Eeehhhhhhh, yes and no?
The answer to that question seems very simple, but is actually incredibly complex (I've gone looking for answers, and as much as I love researching I gave up).
Technically, yes, your vote matters "more" in pop-vote, but only if you ignore a great many other factors.
The biggest group of factors that lessen the power of your vote are mostly related to your economic and social status, as well as peer pressure and "mob-mentality".
This is most often easily seen in densely populated areas.
As an example, people living in cities typically feel a stronger need to fit-in, in order to get along with their neighbors (whom them have many of). This makes them more likely to all vote the same way. In comparison, people living "out in the country" have less need to fit in, because they aren't as influenced by as many people. Thus, the people in "the country" tend to have smaller and more diverse groups voting different ways. In a sense, this ends up being like a microcosm of how the U.S. EC works now with swing states.
That is, the people in the densely populated areas become the "swing-states", disenfranchising people in less populous areas.
Now, all of that is heavily simplified, clearly. There are a lot more factors involved that make it more and more complex.

tl;dr From what I've read, having the EC doesn't matter as much as people think it does, and so does not having it. It really boils down to how the votes are collected and assigned, as well as population density, etc. etc.


In regards to Nationalism, I tend to think of "viewing your country as better and being elitist" as simply being elitist and imperialist, not so much nationalist. But it does seem that it really depends on the context, what your own background is, so it ends up being a rather vague term much of the time.

 

Oh cool, if you have 560 people voting about what to eat as long as 559 are californians the 1 guy from Arizona still gets to decide for everyone.

if there are 561 people of which 560 californian they win by just over half a vote.

 

I agree, but in a winner take all situation, that still puts the minorities as having a vote worth nothing. Why bother campaigning to most states when the east coast, California, and Texas have cities with higher populations? Why bother with rural areas when that's only 15% of the total population? I believe there is some level of division that needs to be maintained instead of going to a straight popular vote. That or replace the current system with a parliamentary system where officials are elected based on percentage of the whole that the party gets.

 

i've been hoping that this election would, whichever way it actually went, start a real splintering process of the two major parties

hasn't happened yet ):

 

you are going to need to be more specific:
Dutch election?


French:


UK:

 

why would i be talking about a european election ?

#murica


also i feel like the "two major parties" thing was a bit of a gimme but hey

 

true but isn't it about time we stopped talking about ancient history?

literally 2 years of build-up and now the slow-motion train crash is just going to play out as expected, meanwhile the the several european countriesc started their campaigns and ended their election withing 2 months.

oh btw the negotiations for the dutch cabinet failed again so it won't be a 4 party coalition.