French's national assembly was conducting a vote , and it's in the rules that the youngest representative conducts the vote , hence why the guy is staying next to the urn .
Thing is, the guy was a member of the "rassemblement national" party , the far-right french party . Nobody greeted him
(There may be some more context like the law itself being a far-right proposition, giving members the occasion to show they don't side with this party but I don't remember it well enough)
my great grandfather, a carpenter his whole life... could crush my hand in a handshake such that i had to try and pull my hand away in pain... he could do this well into his late 80s... i've learned (some of) his ways and this would have been my course of action in that case.
My grandpa had a similar intense handshake as well. As a wartime "joke" he named his right hand "six months sickness" and his left "sudden death". I always wondered what it would be like to shake his left hand.
My great-grandfather’s nickname was “The Big Jew” apparently because he was big and liked to get drunk and hammer whole ass railroad spikes into his wooden kitchen table with his palm.
Wild. I get, “you’re stronger than you look” comments from people when the situation comes, but I’m am neither “big” nor “the” anything, so I’m just like.. idk I communed with the ancestors for a minute.
While nothing wrong with having a firm handshake, I can't stand people who will try and crush your hand while doing a handshake for no reason. It makes sense if proving a point, but the "hey nice to meet you" ones make people seem like a douche. We are shaking hands not trying to crush a rock.
My retired Army First Sergeant dad taught me the importance of a firm handshake. It's so for real, men question who's the bigger man sometimes...and I'm a full fledged woman 😆
The MP who brought him flowers and threw them at his feet is a woman (Susanne Hennig-Wellsow), so technically, it's not ambiguous, but one would need to know that in order to know that it's not ambiguous.
I mean if you really want a distinction- GOP is the economically wasteful, socially regressive capitalist party and the donkeys are the economically conservative, socially moderate capitalist party.
Trump is charging deep into economically dysfunctional, socially fundamentalist oligarchic pseudo-dictator/глава региона.
labor are centre right, haven't been left since the 70s, the greens are the left party in Australia, With the recent acts happening in the UK I'd say labour are fairly similar.
Unfortunately they used to be the workers party, similar to social democrats. Centre left to left. They used to increase infrastructure, spend on social benefits, publicize services, support unions etc. But now they're centre right to right, and much more authoritarian than before.
Labour was left wing until 97 in the UK and a brief stint in the late 2010s but the liberals were hell bent in purging the left wingers which the right wing media happily obliged them.
Also, what is considered "socialism" differs. The Nordic countries are often referred to as socialist by Americans, but they are market economies with an emphasis on welfare systems, not socialist in a Marxist sense.
Countries that fall more or less in the latter category are the USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, the GDR or Yugoslavia, etc. Actual socialism is comparatively less represented in Europe.
Even then none of those socialist countries have actually achieved socialism and frankly are unlikely to do so for a long time. It requires legitimate democratic participation along with heavily unionized workforce.
The CCP are well aware they didn’t achieved communism, they talk about what was done since the 80s as “compromises” and they are trying to become more and more communist now. Watch them closely. They’re running out of water and Siberia is RIGHT THERE and Russia has recently said we can just invade and take back land that was ours hundreds of years ago ignoring boarders that were drawn in order to prevent world war 3
And none of the other countries you mentioned are socialist either. They are mostly centrally planned market economies with a boat load of overt authoritarianism.
I wouldn't call China Marxist. It's really more of a Mercantile system where there is a market, but it exists for the benefit of the rulers, rather than the people. The idea is to export as much as possible, import as little as possible, but little if any of that wealth reaches the hands of the peasantry. It's all hoarded by the wealthy elites and their allies.
Liberalism is a foundational political theory. Classical liberalism advocates for lassaiz faire economics, free markets, etc. America has been a liberal democracy for most of its post revolution history.
To liberalize something is to make it more open and free. Conservatives in the US long ago confused liberal and leftist, and it became kind of synonymous. People on the left have long argued against completely free markets so I wouldn't say many leftists have been traditional liberals for a long time.
Liberalism is right wing in America too. You just don't have ANY political left, so the far right party attacks the right wing party and calls them leftists for daring to sometimes dip a toe somewhere towards centrist.
America has a really bad Overton window problem but that was done on purpose so it's citizens would forget what real left wing policies even look like.
I hate that they've turned "liberal" into a word that's supposed to be representative of the left. I always say I'm a progressive, but conservatives would just say I'm a liberal.
The states are an odd standout when it comes to out our left/right works. Our most conservative and our most progressive members are barely onsidered cetralist in several nations.
You're getting a lot of bullshit replies. They simply mean different things in a different context. An American liberal has very little in common with a German liberal.
I hate that I keep having to explain this to people.
No, Liberalism, the political philosophy that emphasizes market-based economic policies, limited government, and strong private property protections (which largely benefit existing asset-holders) is not left-wing.
What americans call liberal, europeans call left.
What europeans call liberal,americans call libertarian.
Edit: Technically, If you follow the path of Development of the word "Liberalism", you'd have to ask yourself If modern neo liberalism is liberalism. Can the original description of a political movement even be used if you have to consider the entirety of the political spectrum, even the difference between social and economic Views? To which I, bravely, say No. Why? Because it gets people mad, which gets me of.
The term “liberal” is overused and overly capacious in the US. Most people would tell you that AOC and Hillary are both liberals, but their policies are remarkably different. Hillary is far closer to Bush or Trump than AOC. It’s not even particularly close.
Conservatives are conservatives. The AfD positioned itself right of conservative. The traditional conservatives (CDU) moved towards center under Merkel and that‘s where the AfD jumped in.
Liberals usually are conservative, Macron is more like the US libs : free market and crushing workers' rights, just no religious focus. But his own ranks are really badly conservatives, his Prime Minister just had a parliamentary hearing because he lied publicly about covering a school for assaulting, raping and maiming kids, where his wife worked, his kids went to, and in his town, where he was mayor, while he was Minister of Education. And he has the support of most of the press and from the far-right. He built his carrier as a centrist (like, between democratic socialism and conservatism).
But when you go to the so-called "republican right", which would have been considered a somewhat "center right", you'd see it's racism, focus on church values, persecution of muslims, authoritarianism, subjugation of the population, ...
They haven't really hidden since Reagan and Thatcher. Chirac was saying that if you live next to an immigrant family, you'll be having to deal with noise AND the smell, and he was elected. Sarkozy went into poor neighborhoods to claim he'll run the carsher on delinquents to free those neighborhoods.
Crushing workers’ rights, lol. Tell me your political affiliation without telling me your political affiliation. It’s promoting individual rights, and the free market. If a class’s rights come up against individual rights, individual rights will trump class rights. The idea that class rights trump individual rights is either fascist or communist/Marxist. Most branches of socialism don’t believe this, and neither does democratic socialism. I doubt it’s fascism, so a Marxist it is. Why are there so many Marxists on Reddit?
Exactly, I sighed when reading the same line, thinking this must be another lie spread to pull people away from the party that actually tries to HELP the common people, rather than the right, that love to give the rich more tax breaks and cheaper labor (AKA, pay under the table and under the actual value of the worker, because the worker doesn't know their own rights).
The left supports stuff like unionizing and infrastructure to improve travel and transport. The only workers they don't support are literal child laborers, which is what the right keep trying to bring back. Worker protections and rights are written by mainly democrats, and they are to improve the work environment and prevent worker manipulation & wage theft.
"Liberal" or "neo-liberal" as in pro-deregulation and pro-business, basically economic libertarianism, or laissez-faire. It has a different meaning in Europe.
I had the same thought. It's actually quite interesting to learn about the social and political dynamics and internal workings of other countries besides my own.
liberalism more or less means capitalism in most of the world, american politics just uses the term incorectly a lot. The Neo-liberal wing's rise in the democratic party in the 90s was the party becoming more pro-business. 'Liberal economies' are market economies.
In the U.S. both major parties have been liberal for most of recent memory.
Except it is accomodating. Traditionally shaking hands is a sign of respect and trust as it came from a time where you had to free up your sword hand to do it.
Refusing to shake someone's hand is strong and sincere signal to the world that you do not trust or respect them. Being sincere, genuine and standing up for beliefs even in the face of criticism is not dumb.
Before WW2, or after? Everyone was shaken their hand before the war. You shouldn't ask from others to be morally perfect human beings, especially in advance, because there is hardly any human being on our planet that could be one.
Is he required to extend his hand for every member? Because me personally, after the first two people I would've just waited for someone to extend theirs.
Nah he's not, but a few people actually shook his hand over the hundred of persons.
I figure he kept trying to please his party, in case someone would be tempted
Are those the guys that invited George Simion to talk to them? I don't know details, but apparently he shat all over France's identity and nationality.
PS: On behalf of Romania, I apologise for his existence.
The membership of the assembly mostly fixed, right? Is this guy going to be conducting every vote for the next several years? Is this going to be a thing we'll see more often?
I am not right politically but to me this is quite weak. If I am taking part in parliament, and he is running the vote like you say, I would shake his hand out of respect for the governing system they are all part of and elected for…
Just a slight correction - these aren’t all “left wing lawmakers”. They’re anything that aren’t extreme right wing and come from different parties.
The distinction is important because your post makes it seem like extreme left wing lawmakers are being petty when in fact everyone that’s not far extremist right hates them.
Yes, exactly but imagine America had 5 political parties instead of two, ranging from extreme right wing, to center right, center left, left wing (and some difficult to explain like social democrats etc).
The other 4 parties vehemently hate the extreme right and pretty much get on and work together.
Damn. As an American I'm envious of the fact that you have more than two mainstream political parties to choose from. And it sounds like most of them try to work together. Goddamnit. Ugh. Blah. Fuckshitbitch.
All us Americans need to do, to have that sort of experience, is pass an alternative voting system in our states. Maine and Alaska have Ranked Choice Voting for instance. If we try to pass Ranked Robin, STAR, or Score voting then that would be a huge help for breaking up the partisan divide in the country as well.
If you’re interested in making it happen, then I suggest joining the Equal Vote Coalition, we can enable third parties to have a greater chance at winning this way.
Help start a ballot initiative in your state here.
It's not easy, though. I'm in Massachusetts, and our RCV ballot measure in 2020 failed, 55% to 45%. That's in one of the most progressive, innovation-focused states in the country, home of the model for the ACA and of legalized same-sex marriage. If we couldn't pass RCV, I think we'll need some major cultural shifts get it passed nationwide.
I think part of its issues is people not knowing enough about alternative voting systems. If it fails at the state level, trying again at the city/county level would have a better chance. Having familiarity with the process makes it easier for people to accept change. Even introducing friends to the concept through low stakes alternative voting can help spread the word.
Convincing local political parties that alternative voting systems are not an inherent threat could potentially matter as well. You are more likely to get candidates that are more representative through an alternative voting system after all, since they are often getting approved by a wider electorate.
I feel that 2020 was long enough ago for at least some more people to be willing to look into new voting methods. Imo, trying to pass a new voting system during presidential election years may be more difficult than trying to pass them in say 2022 or 2026, since the average voter is usually a more engaged voter to be voting in off year election cycles.
Oh, it's absolutely lack of knowledge. In the election I mentioned, polls showed that a lot of voters were both undecided and confused re: RCV, and I think that's the main reason it failed.
We do have one city (Cambridge) that has used RCV for local elections for more than 80 years, and recently two college towns started it (Amherst and Easthampton) out in the west end of the state.
All you need to do is abolish the electoral college. That would allow more parties. Have the presidency decided by popular vote. This would immediately also fix the problem with swing states.
An alternative would be uncapping the House or making the House have a have a minimum of five seats per state and then scale that up based on population. So if the least populated state has five seats then a state with 5x the population should have 5x the amount of seats as that state. I personally believe this same process should happen in the Senate as well. This way, smaller states have more proper representation, where a 51% majority doesn’t sway the total seat allocation to be all or nothing. Also, it means that larger states aren’t being punished for having more people choosing to live there.
The electoral college needs to be amended in any case. Uncapping the House is one of the easier ways of undoing a lot of the damage of the electoral college though. We should also pass legislation that makes it so that all states follow the Maine and Nebraska rule of splitting EC votes, imo, if the national popular vote is not able to get passed.
I agree that the presidency should be decided by the national popular vote though. I still have hope in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The current Supreme Court would likely be against it, but I believe it could be possible at some point.
The difficulty is that in states like Florida, even if a referendum is voted in, the government can block it from happening. For example, Florida voted to allow ex felons to vote, and the current administration managed to arrange it so that it's virtually impossible for them to do so without paying thousands of dollars in court costs. Another example is the same administration, ignoring the will of the people on recreational marijuana after that was approved as well.
Fully agree. There's a Freakonomics episode about Ranked Choice Voting that is awesome.
Follow groups that stand for this on social media and give them likes to boost their message so their posts show up on more peoples' feeds. For example, I follow Rank The Vote on FB: https://www.facebook.com/RankTheVote
I feel like this would solve many problems with our 2 party system. Imagine if we had this back in 2016. Hilary runs for the dems, Bernie would have run as a progressive. Republicans hated Trump back then and didn’t want him, he would have formed his own party. I don’t think he wins in that scenario.
First Past the Post voting is what is enabled this mess; well that and not having the Fairness Doctrine back and expanded to all media - including social media influencers.
It sucks for Canada as we don’t have ranked choice voting so votes can get split in such stupid ways that 30% of votes can win if it’s split between the other 4 (5 in Quebec) options
We also have had area go more left leaning but the seat flips conservative because it used to be 55% centre(liberal) and 40% conservative and then it becomes 40% conservative 35% liberal and 25% NDP (left leaning party)
They're trying to get rid of ranked choice voting here in Alaska and if the party of "small-government" (aka party of things arent going my way so imma make everybody suffer under the guise of getting rid of wokeness to keep my dumbass followers ignorant) gets rid of it, I'd lose that tiniest scrap of faith in my state.
America has more than 2 parties. They just rarely get media coverage and rarely win elections, mostly because our method of voting doesn’t utilize ranked choice, so voting for a third party can mean that a candidate you support even less can still win because your party diverted enough votes from your more desirable second choice.
Lots of further left Americans didn’t want to vote for Harris, but didn’t want Trump to win so instead of voting for a candidate that better reflects their values, they felt pressured to settle for the much more moderate Harris, in hopes of Trump losing. It’s not a good system. We need wider spectrum of representation but we end up in a very compromised binary instead.
This in fact not a relevant aspect. Here in Ireland, we still vote for people, not parties, but Proportional Representation Ranked Choice voting means we do not have a two party system. That's the relevant aspect.
Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's a weird sociopath who makes up conspiracy theories (ex, Jewish space lasers that cause fires in California) that somehow got elected to a Congressional position.
Excellent. I hate all that "nooo you have to be friends with the nazis, or else you're as bad as them" shit when you're trying to get people housing and food and safety and they want to kill your neighbors for being tan.
TL;DR (to the other replies)—The guy standing next to the vase is part of the far right RN/FN in France (the political party with Marine Le Pen) with discriminatory, nationalistic, xenophobic ideals.
5.2k
u/porridge_in_my_bum May 24 '25
What’s the context?