• pjmlp 7 hours ago
    Unfortunely too many European countries are following along voting into the same kind of local parties.

    Those of my generation and previous ones following WW II, just wasted all the efforts for a better society.

    [-]
    • jacquesm 6 hours ago
      The good thing is though that Europe is fragmented enough that it won't go to pieces all at once in all countries, which gives some chance to remedy. Hopefully we - NL - will be able to move on from Wilders and his fear based movement soon. Another big factor is how long putin will be in a position to try to influence Europe by shoving refugees by the trainload into the EU immigration system whilst at the same time funding the right wing and various secession movements. I suspect that once that regime collapses that there will be a lot of people that will be missing their paychecks.
    • legacynl 6 hours ago
      Don't forget putin is actively pushing these parties in the US and Europe. It's not an organic backsliding of societies into fascism, but a concentrated effort
      [-]
      • wolvesechoes 4 hours ago
        Russia involvement is one thing, but it would be delusional to believe without its tentacles everything would be fine.
      • crazybonkersai 4 hours ago
        Do you have any proof for that except the usual drivel of European politicians of blaming Putin for any domestic problems? The rise of the "brown wave" is natural considering politicians in power have been constantly ignoring domestic problems in favour of pursuing geopolitical agenda. If you want to see a concrete example of election interference, look no further at recent elections in Moldova, Romania or Georgia and lengths EU has gone in keeping pro Russian politicians to get elected.
    • decremental 6 hours ago
      [dead]
    • mytailorisrich 6 hours ago
      It's the political parties in power in Europe over the last 50-60 years that are to blame for Europe's current problems, not the parties that are rising in reaction to that. Yet, we are told that the only option is more of the same, which in turns fuels the growth of discontent.
      [-]
      • jacquesm 6 hours ago
        You are missing the long arm of russia that is funding discontent all over the EU as well as to help create the problems that are at the root of that discontent. Between those two and outright xenophobia there is a lot of opportunity for mayhem. I can't wait until that asshole kicks the bucket and I hope - but I don't have a lot of evidence for that hope - that the next generation of russian leaders will realize that if they keep this up they will end up achieving exactly that which they are afraid of. By now it should be clear that the days of empire are over.
        [-]
        • wolvesechoes 4 hours ago
          Why would next Russian leaders start to believe that suddenly countries stop having opposing interest and don't need to use variety of tools to secure them, including war and sowing discontent among the countries they consider their rivals?

          Much can be said, but not that they are so naive as your typical HN commenter.

          [-]
          • jacquesm 4 hours ago
            Because there is no upside for them. Nobody cares or wants to invade russia, that's mostly in their heads. But if they keep going like this at some point it might actually be on the table. There was a point in time where what you just wrote could have been said for Amsterdam and Utrecht, which were regularly at war. But cooperation and collaboration are a much better way to run the world. Russia should move out of 1905 and get to 2025 if they want to continue to be a factor in the long term.
            [-]
            • wolvesechoes 2 hours ago
              Cooperation is better until it stops being better. You are taking last few decades, which were anomaly due to unprecedented situation of total global hegemony of US, and you extrapolate for the rest of future human history, whereas it dissolves right before your eyes.

              And invasion or occupation is hardly the only example of adversarial policy, even if most obvious.

        • mytailorisrich 6 hours ago
          > You are missing the long arm of russia that is funding discontent all over the EU as well as to help create the problems that are at the root of that discontent.

          The trend in Europe started many decades ago. It is too convenient to blame Russia to avoid acknowledging reality. Russia does not create problems, it is an opportunistic actor that tries to use the existing problems and discontent to its advantage.

          Immediately labelling discontent as "xenophobia" is exactly what I mentioned in my previous comments, a denial of reality and of people's concerns. It shuts down debate and only fuels discontent. People are effectively told that they have no choice and if they don't like it they are wrong and racist.

          [-]
          • jacquesm 6 hours ago
            > The trend in Europe started decades ago.

            In the intelligence community there is very little doubt that russia has been doing this for decades. Yes, there is a home grown component as well but it would not be nearly as large if not for all this meddling.

            > Immediately labelling discontent as "xenophobia" is exactly what I mentioned in my previous comments, a denial of a reality and of people's concerns. It shuts down debate and only fuels discontent. People are effectively told that they have no choice and if they don't like it they are wrong and racist.

            Yes.

            [-]
            • mytailorisrich 6 hours ago
              That is plain delusion, really. Economic and, especially, immigration issues are fully home-made. Again, Russia is only using them with very small effects.

              This will end badly because of this denial of reality and denial of people's voices, not because of Russia.

              [-]
              • jacquesm 5 hours ago
                > Economic and, especially, immigration issues are fully home-made.

                This is incredibly short-sighted and is in fact exactly such a denial of reality that you accuse others of. The world is divided into poorer regions and wealthier regions, and regions that are peaceful and ones that are less peaceful. Then there is oppression based on race, creed, sexual preference and a whole raft of other things.

                As long as that is the case there will be people that want to move away from where they were born.

                You are claiming to speak for a group, but in fact you are just speaking for yourself, and poorly reasoned and supported at that.

                [-]
                • mytailorisrich 5 hours ago
                  Odd how the replies to my comments seem to quickly swerve into ad hominem attacks and irrelevant points... Perhaps that's QED.

                  The world is what it is. That has nothing to do with the immigration policies in Europe, which are chosen by the governments not imposed on them, and nothing to do with the growing range of issues in Europe.

                  I am not claiming to speak for anyone, by the way. I only acknowledge the election results and trends across Europe and how those signs of public opinion are met.

                  Have a nice one, guys.

                  [-]
                  • saubeidl 5 hours ago
                    > The world is what it is. That has nothing to do with the immigration policies in Europe, which are chosen by the governments not imposed on them, and nothing to do with the growing range of issues in Europe.

                    It does however, have everything to do with centuries of European imperialism. We shaped the world to be the way it is. It didn't happen by accident.

                    [-]
                    • pjmlp 4 hours ago
                      Worse, because after we left many of those countries to their own "freedom", the imperialism kept going by having big corporations sponsor the new goverments.

                      Our goverments could do better fixing the ways of the past, instead it is much easier to complain about immigration, from countries politians themselves would not freely chose to live on, other than on big monthly check from one of those corporations.

                      [-]
                      • jacquesm 4 hours ago
                        That's exactly what the Dutch did with Surinam for instance (And with Indonesia, which was in many ways far, far worse and which caused massive bloodshed). They pretty much left the place in shambles with no credible path to stability. I think to some degree it was petty revenge for the loss of the colony, as in 'if you think you can do without us then we'll make that as hard as possible for you'. They could have done a much more graceful handover, instead they abandoned their responsibilities overnight and pretended that any fall-out was the locals' problem.

                        Interestingly, at the time when this happened there was due to the fact that Surinam people were considered to be citizens a massive influx of Surinam people to NL, the ones that saw the writing on the wall and realized that there would be a less-than-optimal situation post dutch pull-out. This then - predictably - led to exactly the same levels of xenophobia about the Surinam people coming to NL. The kind of stuff dutch people at the time were saying about them does not bear repeating here, suffice to say it was pretty horrible. Now, a good 40 years later they've integrated into Dutch society, and you don't hear anybody anymore about how they were going to cause the end of our 'way of life' That honor simply shifts from one group to the next. The only ones so far that seem to escape such scorn are the Ukrainians, but I suspect if their numbers would rise further that that would happen just the same, already Wilders has been trying out that fiddle to see how well it plays. But he's playing with fire on that subject and he knows it, we have not forgotten his response to the Russian downing of MH-17.

                    • jacquesm 5 hours ago
                      It is interesting how few people are willing to admit that these are problems in large part of our own making. If there are two places that are both poor and one decides to plunder the other and becomes fabulously wealthy because they are able to turn what they plundered into wealth more effectively than the places that they plundered then it stands to reason that at some point the citizens of the places that were plundered would like to move their residence to the wealthier place.

                      Long term sustainable policies that do not result in such an imbalance require a longer term view and possibly lower short term profits. In fact, the United States was on that path until Trump took over. Mexico was slowly getting wealthier and people were already moving back because it was a more viable alternative. Now of course all that progress has been destroyed but it was really working, and I'm pretty sure that it could have been accelerated.

              • saubeidl 6 hours ago
                Please stop claiming "people's voices" for your own extremist agenda. You do not speak for the people.
                [-]
                • mytailorisrich 55 minutes ago
                  I have flagged this comment because of the gratuitous insult and misrepresentation. Sad.

                  "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."

                  "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.*"

          • saubeidl 6 hours ago
            "People's concerns" is a way too broad term to pick for your personal agenda.

            I, too, am part of the "people". My concerns are that we are seeing xenophobia rise as a distraction from the issues caused by capitalist contradictions and that Russia is fueling that fire for its own motives.

            I, too, am unhappy with the current political parties, but for reasons opposite to yours. As long as the means of production are owned by the capitalist class, we will continue to suffer.

            My "people's concern" is not the same as yours. Please do not try to commandeer it.

            [-]
            • wolvesechoes 4 hours ago
              Ah, yes, true leftist belief that all evil arise from capitalism. The moment socialism arrives there won't be racism or xenophobia.

              It is as true as the belief that social dynamics can be explained without the notion of class and modes of production.

              [-]
              • jacquesm 4 hours ago
                > Ah, yes, true leftist belief that all evil arise from capitalism.

                Strawman detected. That's not what the GP wrote.

                > The moment socialism arrives there won't be racism or xenophobia.

                And that makes two.

                > It is as true as the belief that social dynamics can be explained without the notion of class and modes of production.

                Ok, I give up.

          • wolvesechoes 4 hours ago
            You are right, but people would always prefer to put all blame on external factors (in this case Russia) than to admit that their precious liberal democracy and global order was just a temporal thing, as everything else in human history, and it ends because its own contradictions as well as incompetent and corrupted elites steering it this way.
  • Telaneo 6 hours ago
    If the US democracy collapses to the point where there truly is no hope (think civil war or Trump declares himself king (or whatever other fancy word)), I'd imagine Europe will take that very seriously and push to get out of there and become independent in all the ways that matter that they aren't now.

    However, I have a hard time imagining that happening. As long as elections are still a thing over there, even if Trump gets a third term, that's still probably not enough hope lost to push Europe over the edge to actually take action rather than continuing to wait it out and slowly distancing themselves from the US rather than quickly.

    [-]
    • apothegm 2 hours ago
      Unfortunately, having elections isn’t the same thing as having free and fair elections.
    • saubeidl 6 hours ago
      If it actually happens, it'll be too late. Europe needs to prepare for that eventuality in advance.
    • lapcat 5 hours ago
      > As long as elections are still a thing over there, even if Trump gets a third term

      I think you misunderstand. The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term. The only way he remains in power after his second term is if the Constitution is abolished, in which case "continuing to wait it out" is futile. It would be equivalent to this:

      > Trump declares himself king (or whatever other fancy word)

      [-]
      • Telaneo 5 hours ago
        > The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution.

        I have no faith Trump gives a shit about the constitution. He and his goons can amend and screw around till they find something that gives them what they want. So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president, the fire burning under Europe's bottom isn't burning hot enough for them to move. Unless there's literally no election, not even the pretence of democracy, I can't imagine anyone doing anything much different from what they're doing now. If they were going to, they'd have already done it.

        [-]
        • lapcat 3 hours ago
          > I have no faith Trump gives a shit about the constitution.

          I didn't say he does. But again, abolishing the Constitution is the only path to staying in power.

          > He and his goons can amend

          No, they can't. Have you studied the amendment process?

          > So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president

          That's the point. There can't be another somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's President.

          [-]
          • Telaneo 2 hours ago
            If they can't amend, they can bypass. Or ignore.

            If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term, or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time, regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough. I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.

            [-]
            • lapcat 2 hours ago
              > If they can't amend, they can bypass. Or ignore.

              Yes, that was my point! Again, the only path to remaining in power is to completely bypass or ignore the Consitution. There is no legal means, not even nominally.

              > If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term

              This is explicitly, clearly unconstitutional.

              > or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time

              This is just hand-waving.

              > regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough.

              How will it be legitimate at all?

              > I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.

              You also appear to have very little knowledge of the US.

              [-]
              • Telaneo 2 hours ago
                What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional, and the bench is very stacked. He's already above the law.

                My point isn't really about the US. My point is that Europe will do naught more than what they're doing now unless the US democracy compleatly collapses. Even if the elections are made and choose a candidate that can't legally be elected, him being elected still has a shred of democracy that means it isn't totally gone, and thus probably not gone enough for Europe to actually wake up. It won't be a free and fair election if that's the way things go, but it will be an election, and I believe that will be enough.

                [-]
                • lapcat 2 hours ago
                  > What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional

                  This is not entirely accurate. If 5 Supreme Court justices declared that Trump is king, or that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, that doesn't make it Constutional. There are certain actions that are just obviously, blatantly unconstitutional, and everyone would recognize it, regardless of what the justices say. At a certain point, the justices themselves would be deemed to be ignoring the Constitution. The declaration may spawn another civil war, but we're not stupid enough to think, "Oh, hey, a king is actually Constitutional", and I doubt that Europeans are stupid enough to believe that either.

                  [-]
                  • Telaneo 1 hour ago
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States
                    [-]
                    • lapcat 1 hour ago
                      I am of course already aware of that case. If you have an argument to make, then make it; a bare link is not an argument.

                      Note that the case is about criminal prosecution. Congress retains the power specified in the Constitution to impeach and remove the President.

                      At this point, having already misunderstood our electoral system, you don't seem to be in a strong position to lecture US citizens about US law.

      • rufus_foreman 3 hours ago
        >> The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term.

        The Constitution says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say no person shall serve as President more than twice.

        Gerald Ford was never elected to the office of the President. He was never even elected to the office of Vice President. Yet he served as President.

        One scenario: Trump runs as a Vice President on a ticket with someone else as President. 5 minutes after being inaugurated, the President resigns, making Trump President for a third term.

        I'm sure clever people can think of other scenarios.

        [-]
        • lapcat 2 hours ago
          > One scenario: Trump runs as a Vice President on a ticket with someone else as President. 5 minutes after being inaugurated, the President resigns, making Trump President for a third term.

          You can conceive of imaginary scenarios, but that's not going to happen. Nobody who wins the Presidency is going to resign. If that's the scenario you're afraid of, it's just silly.

          I would note that Republican Senators are reluctant even to bypass the current Democratic filibuster shutting down the government. As much as Republican politicians are deferential to Trump, they still have their own political ambitions. Some of them are biding their time in the hope that they themselves can become the next President.

  • yawpitch 7 hours ago
    American democracy is already dead… an electorate does not shoot itself in the head twice and survive.
    [-]
  • oldpersonintx2 7 hours ago
    [dead]
  • lifestyleguru 7 hours ago
    It's a tragic mistake believing that Europe is any superior ethically and politically. As long as yachts and mansions in Balearic, Canaries, and Polynesia are well supplied and serviced, Europe is content. The only difference is that they're not that much into golf.