So where are they and what are they doing? (page 26 of 33)

Me neither. 🙂

I think you're a machine for testing the forum members' nerve endurance.

Coming from you, that's pretty ironic. 😐

To each their own—it’s not just about politics! 😉

Hello,

I note that unlike us, you chose a blonde 🙂 https://www.revueconflits.com/giorgia-meloni-premier-bilan-apres-deux-ans-a-la-tete-de-litalie/

The "us" and "you" used that way only exist in your imagination. In my language, you chose the Italian blonde because that kind of politics is the only thing that suits you. The border is far less significant than the worldview.

About the article in the link... I’m too lazy (the morning alternative is diving into Quignard’s silence). So, I bet readers are educated enough to identify the author of the article and then see whether it’s information or propaganda.

Catherine

Can we discredit or undermine the justice system in your opinion? I completely agree if, with blindfolded eyes and holding its scales, it produces unassailable and impartial judgments, if it doesn’t venture into political territory by trying to play kingmaker, thus overstepping into the executive branch:

Take the LePen ruling: what democrat can accept that in a legal consideration, a candidate is eliminated from a presidential election for the reason of disturbing public order? It makes me furious. If this measure affected Mélenchon or Macron, I’d be just as outraged! Almost as serious in the legal consideration, the judges ordered immediate ineligibility for a non-existent situation: LePen is no longer a European deputy and therefore cannot reoffend. The risk is ZERO!

If you respect this justice system, it’s not mine. In this case reheated at the right moment after 14 years, the three judges that day ruled in the name of the French people, and I was absent from my people. But let’s not get into the merits of the case, which still needs to be retried because it won’t change the legal considerations.

I’m not a legal expert, but I rely on the more authoritative opinions of Noëlle Lenoir, member of the Constitutional Council, and Maître Régis de Castelnault, author of the blog "Vu du droit" and yet a convinced Marxist.

Didn’t Marine Le Pen used to demand uncompromising justice for others?

This backlash is pretty amusing.

And her problem—and her party’s—isn’t the presidential election.

It’s the long months between now and the next vote.

Their ability to cause trouble has taken a serious hit.

A no-confidence motion that passes, Marine out of a job...

You think twice about things now.

Didn’t Marine Le Pen demand relentless justice for others?

Relentless doesn’t mean inconsistent in its reasoning: and honestly, whether it’s her or anyone else, this isn’t coherent. That’s what’s really worrying. Besides, the arrogance you’re showing is a powerful driver for backlash at the polls—would Trump have been elected in a landslide if the campaign to take him down, discredit him, and eliminate him hadn’t been so intense? Even on official French media: just listen to France Inter in the weeks before his election, or the same channel’s derisive, shameful remarks about Ms. Meloni.

Michel

Whatever you want, Michel. 😉

I don’t get this defense of the dark side, but you’re free to speak your mind just like I am.

That’s not the point—the justice system has to be FAIR, no matter who’s involved.

Whatever you say, Michel.😉 I don’t get this defense of the dark side, but you’re as free as I am to speak your mind.

You’re really diving into black-and-white thinking here. Rationality, justice as a concept, logical rigor—none of that seems to register with you, just because you’ve let yourself get worked up over a political speech you don’t even truly listen to yourself?

Michel

Personally, I think it’s spot on.

Whatever you want, Michel. 🙂

As you like, Michel.🙂

Nothing uplifting about reading stuff like "useful idiots" who’ll soon be waving their self-righteousness like a banner, paving the way for populism to take power—all thanks to their blindness and dogmatism. (Just to clarify, "useful idiot" isn’t an insult but a well-known Marxist reference.)

Michel

Whatever you say, Michel. :)

But the long months separating the National Rally from the next election. Their power to cause trouble is greatly diminished. A no-confidence motion that passes, a Marine out of a job...

Alert! Beep beep! Careful, the Godwin point is about to be reached here😉[;]

If this measure affected Mélenchon or Macron, I’d be yelling just as loud!

We’re not exactly at risk of losing our voices, since I’d be surprised if this measure affected either of them. And since the first one (he’s not the only one) is useful to the second... [;]

In your view, can one discredit or denigrate the justice system? Absolutely agree—if, blindfolded and holding her scales, she delivers unassailable and impartial judgments, if she doesn’t venture into political territory by trying to crown kings, thus overstepping into the executive branch:

Take the LePen ruling: what democrat can accept that in a legal consideration, a candidate is eliminated from a presidential election on the grounds of disturbing public order? It makes me furious. If this measure had affected Mélenchon or Macron, I’d be just as outraged! Almost as serious in the ruling, the judges imposed immediate ineligibility for a scenario that doesn’t even exist: LePen is no longer a European deputy and therefore can’t reoffend. The risk is ZERO!

If you respect this justice system, it’s not mine. In this case, reheated at the right moment after 14 years, the three judges that day ruled in the name of the French people—and I wasn’t part of my people. But let’s not delve into the merits of the case, which still needs to be retried, as it won’t change the legal considerations anyway.

I’m not a legal expert, but I rely on the more authoritative opinions of Noëlle Lenoir, a member of the Constitutional Council, and Maître Régis de Castelnault, author of the blog "Vu du Droit" and yet a convinced Marxist.

Hi François,

I feel like I’m reading something straight out of Berlusconi...

And the sad denial of that old La Fontaine fable (Depending on whether you’re powerful...) because that’s the core of your argument: the blonde should’ve been acquitted of her misdeeds just because she’s surely running for president.

Was the law created solely to target her? Was the penalty invented just for her? If the answer to both questions is no, then there’s no issue. And if there is one, we can trust the justice system to adjust or overturn the ruling.

Either way, it might frustrate her personally from holding the presidential office and sadden her followers who see her as a natural leader, a maternal figure, whatever (they love their chiefs and guides), but it won’t stop her movement from seizing power by pulling all the victimization and conspiracy levers—basically, their bread and butter.

Catherine

Good evening Catherine...

Zorba isn’t talking about that—he’s addressing the legal grounds and explaining how absurd they are, like disturbing public order and repeat offenses. I share this view; moreover, I really struggle to even understand the offense itself. The European election is a party-list system; it makes perfect sense to me that elected officials would consider the funds allocated to them as intended for their party’s activities, whether at the European or national level. Given that, the fact that the penalty is as severe as possible and accompanied by an exceptional measure is indeed problematic.

And if there is one, you can trust the justice system to soften or overturn that ruling.

An immediate sentence with no possibility of a suspensive appeal—does that seem fair to you?

"but that won’t stop his movement from taking power by pulling all the victimization and conspiracy levers—basically, their usual playbook."

I still find it quite hard to follow your reasoning: the idea that the RN’s program, project, or vision could only become majority-backed through manipulation, a conspiracy, or cheating. What if that project actually gained majority support—what would be the problem? Reading you, I feel like I’m hearing that France Inter commentator who, every Friday morning, only had disdainful labels, sweeping generalizations, and dogmatism to try to banish any differing opinions.

Michel

I’m not a legal expert, but I’m relying on the more authoritative opinions of Noëlle Lenoir, a member of the Constitutional Council, and Maître Régis de Castelnault, author of the blog "Vu du Droit."

I’m not a legal expert either, but there are other authoritative opinions that support an equally legitimate argument...

Take the Le Pen ruling: what democrat can accept that in a legal consideration, a candidate for the presidential election is eliminated?

On this point, the clarification by Jean-Philippe Derosier, a professor of public law at the University of Lille and holder of the parliamentary studies chair:

"By arguing that it should be up to the people to decide Marine Le Pen’s fate, one is advocating for a partial and partisan popular justice. Should it be up to the people to judge all defendants? Should the people decide whether someone is a rapist, a murderer, or should be acquitted? And, in that case, based on what arguments and what framework?"

The judges imposed an immediate ineligibility for a non-existent situation: Le Pen is no longer a European MP and therefore cannot reoffend. The risk is ZERO!

"Marine Le Pen embezzled European Parliament funds for years and doesn’t seem to see the problem. The judge believes that if she doesn’t see it today, she likely won’t see it tomorrow either. There’s every chance she’ll perpetuate the system she put in place."

The second risk would be that she evades justice if elected President of the Republic, which would grant her immunity. ...

The sentence has political consequences... but should the judicial time submit to political time?

In this case, the organized embezzlement of public funds has been proven. In a healthy democracy, at the risk of further eroding citizens' trust in their representatives, shouldn’t that be enough to permanently bar the guilty party—or parties—from any political office, especially the highest one?

Tatra beat me to it, but he summed up the situation well. Otherwise, I note that in a debate, it's important to mock the opponent—thanks for the Berlusconi reference. But I don’t care, it’s so ridiculous and off-topic. You really disappoint me; I expected more nuance from you.

Let’s stick to the actual issues; these issues are scandalous for a democracy. Mélenchon could be next on the list of prosecutions, and I’d feel the same outrage if he were treated the same way. That’s what democracy is. Note that the MODEM was prosecuted for the same reason; its leader Bayrou was cleared BECAUSE HE WASN’T AWARE OF THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT IN HIS PARTY!! Who can believe that? He even became Prime Minister! It’s like Sarkozy, who wasn’t aware of the pharaonic spending in his election campaign.

Note that if, for the judge, Le Pen’s election would disrupt public order, Bardella’s election would also disrupt public order, as many civil servants have already announced they wouldn’t obey their new hierarchy. But Bardella is off the judge’s radar. What do we do? Block democracy under the threat of blackmail?

Finally, I’d like to make a point about the RN. It’s constantly ostracized, labeled as racist, anti-democratic, its leaders called evil, fascists... It’s become Pavlovian. The "Republican Parties" set up unnatural alliances as sanitary cordons against these "outcasts" in every election... Of course, everyone has the right to their opinion. But it’s worth noting that over the years, this party has fed off defections from the Communist Party and parts of the left through a communicating vessel. It’s become the party of the working class. Personally, I think it’s indecent to constantly spit on hardworking, modest citizens with limited means—those who feed us, care for us, build, transport, ensure our safety, and get pushed around on occasion.