2d ago

Le Pen’s ‘Save Democracy’ rally after guilty verdict falls short of expectations

www.politico.eu

Le Pen’s ‘Save Democracy’ rally after guilty verdict falls short of expectations – POLITICO

Marine Le Pen’s political future is cloudy for now, but Sunday’s rally in support of her took place under an impeccably sunny spring sky in an upscale neighborhood of central Paris, with temperatures nearing 20 degrees Celsius.

But despite ideal weather, the crowd didn’t show up.

https://archive.ph/LqE8j

34 comments

- She herself said, that people who embezzle funds or are convicted of fraud should have their passive voting rights stripped. She just didn't think it would hit her
- 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
  
  Russian, Chinese, or US. They’re all spouting the same garbage these days
  
  Don't engage with trolls, just block and move on.
  
  Already done, sometimes I just find it useful to reply once with "the rest of us think you're stupid"
  
  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. Note the distinction: democratic rights doesn't mean human rights.
  
  Someone who embezzled funds should not be able to be in any position to embezzle even more funds.
  
  Convicted felons should not rule.
  Or should we just get people out of prison and let them make the rules ?
  If you want to have a convicted felon as a ruler, go to America.
  
  It's as if you have forgotten that actions have consequences.
  She broke the law, she could've chosen not to break the law, and she would still be eligible to run. But Marine Le Pen was not really popular. So don't kid yourself there either.
  
  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.
  
  It looks to me like enough people want you to shut up, yet you won't.
  
  Of all the asinine arguments that could be made that is about the worst one I have heard
  
  And you didn't ask a question. So what?
  You are not taking in good faith.
  
  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.
- The favourite candidate is Macron. Twice! So your innuendo has a false premise.
- That's a fallacy, Democracy doesn't mean "let any elected moron lead," it means "leaders should encourage and further the democratic process," to represent the best interests of the people. 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 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.
  
  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...
- Letting corrupt and convicted leaders doesn't really sound like the better option.
  
  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.
  
  The party can still be elected. The individual person has been blocked.
- What do you mean "favorite"? 🤣
  
  The most likely to win should be able to gather more than ok people 🤣
  She's not the favorite candidate in France.
- Ban? What do you mean?

34 comments