Ah. The 'we're all in this together but we'll also pit you against each other' ploy. Its unfortunately brutally effective. Also, much as the Guardian is a boring rag written by humourless Blairites, I love the way they present this:
oh cool the 100 days are over, now i can finally ask, did he do anything for the poor oppressed middle class so far, bc i didnt read anything other than him installing a same same but different (or maybe even worse? opinons ...) elite regime? is america great already? and yes, divide et impera works well since the romans. us versus them a is real seller. edit: to not spread alternative facts, i just read (probably again) that the acutal quote "divide et impera" is attributed to machiavelli or at least some other italian guy (de and en wiki are unclear here and i cba to further research it). still its how the romans ruled already.
It's not even halfway, that page is just a counter. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-trump-first-100-days-president-daily-updates
aww, then i witdraw my question. but damn it burns on my tongue (i assume thats no english saying?! ). but yeah, time flies, but not that fast. inauguration was last month <.<
So, will Le Pen win? Thoughts? I imagine she is going to go up in the polls after her visit to Lebanon where she refused to wear the headscarf because she stood up for her own values. If she does win, I imagine that will be a big hit to the EU, to liberal politics, and to socialism across the board. It will, in my opinion, signify that the pendulum is now swinging right for the next X years.
chances she will make it to the run-offs are high, id say yes for that. im not so sure that shell be next president though. our fascist right wing candidate, norbert hofer, had a better starting point and lost against a former green party member.
I'd have her at first for the runoff. I think she has an actual shot at winning the whole thing though. Her popularity keeps going up and people are getting tired of politicians so she seems like a strong alternative. Granted, these were the same bookies who had Trump losing immensely weren't they?
i edited my reply in the meanwhile. she has a lot worse standing than our rightwing candidate norbert hofer at the austrian presidential elections. and he lost against a former green party member.
Really? All I see are Le Pens numbers going up, and apparently she has a commanding lead over anyone else currently at 26% which, I don't know how big that is considering I don't follow European politics, but it seems promising for her. I think her numbers will boost even higher due to the spout with Lebanon where they demanded she wear a headscarf to speak to the grand mufti and she just walked away.
hofer had 35%, didnt help to get more than 46.2% in the end. its btw the 3rd (out of 12) biggest difference at presidential elections in austira.
Eh, I could see Le Pen winning due to the perceived upheaval with the refugees. Edit: Also, what is up with the stupid protests about "Migrants" and why are they protesting by boycotting work? I don't think anyone is arguing against immigrants, just illegal immigrants...
i wouldnt be surprised if she gets the most votes in the first election. but then its her against all the others and her current 28% wont help her there. its called solidartiy. i know strange concept to some, but its not fully dead yet.
But illegal immigrants are illegal. Protest all they want, I just hate how the media portrays immigrants skipping working and getting fired as they are getting fired because they are immigrants. They were fired for not showing up...
i couldnt find any article that claims anyone was fired because they were immigrants? all i could find was that people got fired for parttaking in the "day without immigrants" protests without permission from their empolyers. and in each of that evil MSM articles, there also are statements from company spokesmen which say exactly what you said - "they didnt get fired because they parttook in a politcal protest, they got fired for not showing up at work". dont interpret. it btw is sad that unions didnt call for strikes, it would have different legal premises. though ofc i dont know us strike law, i can imagine that it might be illegal. but dont forget, the sole reasons there are workers rights is because people took such (or even worse) risks and showed solidarity. i value those who put issues above their personal gains.
Within reason, protests should be given the same sort of rights as strikes if they are workplace related (e.g. proving how x is vital to the workforce) or they should be backed by unions. (Real unions, not the mobs the USA has.) And the bookies were off on Trump because they have to be wrong sometime or else what's the point? Also Trump won on ECs, not votes.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/us/workers-fired-day-without-immigrants/ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/2...pating-in-day-without-immigrants-protest.html Go by the titles. Sure, the articles clear it up but most people don't go by reading the actual articles. A lot of people see the headline and thin "Oh those bastards" and form an opinion. To me at least, the titles DEFINITELY hint that "They were fired for being immigrants". It's a very very slight spin, but slight spin after slight spin can lead to big things.
excuse me? the fox news article actually literally reads "Dozens of workers lose their jobs for participating in Day Without Immigrants protest". the cnn article headline doesnt state any reason. if you claim something at least provide good examples and dont disprove yourself. read, not read into. now i could understand if you would go on about news outlets painting like the actual reason would be protesting (which, according to the companies, isnt), but thats not what you said.
