Why do I have strong vibes that a better way of phrasing this is "a percentage of the people who thinks the fr gov's been acting against national interest (likely the people who think /their/ interest aligns with the national interest quite closely) knows it."
I mean, I don't know France and I'm no friend with "the government" and I oppose turning browsers into anything they are not supposed to be, but that "the government" can go against "national interest" for 20 year and "the people" know it is such a trite story that... uuuuugh. In short, you added no context at all.
Then don't try to put discredit to the saying of an insider. GP is 100% right. I've been back after about ~5 years living abroad and the country is in an astonishing decline on every plan (educational, moral, economical, political, diplomatic, security, judicial, medical, etc. the list goes one). And most of it is stemming from the policies enforced in the last decades.
The GP in question is a generic ramble about distaste for current government. You can apply that for each and every country - there's not one where citizens are happy with their leaders. And if this flies for 'insider knowledge' in France you really are f**d and, its not because of the government.
For the last 4 presidents and their ~15 governments (20 years), both "left" and "right".
But I agree said rambling remains quite generic nonetheless.
I was actually trying to show it does have some merit by pointing out that, despite being generic, said ramble targets all the governments we’ve had over the last 20 years, and thus shouldn’t be so easily dismissed.
The conclusion was me playing nice by finding some common ground with the person I was replying to.
That’s all.
That's what makes it sound like noise. If you took "france" out of the sentence I wouldn't be able to tell which country this is talking about. US, Canada, UK, China, Japan? It's like the fortune reading of government criticism.
I'm sure you perceive the decline, and you were so kind to mention in which fields. Let's take an example, i.e. economy and security. Immigration and illegal immigrants are often related to immigration, in public discourse. I'm sure the government in the last 20 years has done something about it (despite me not knowing France): either it tried to tighten it, or to make it happen more smoothly, or to integrate the immgrants, or to convince them to go back, or...
Now, I'm also pretty confident there's a sizable percentage of people that think that immigration is not a security problem nor an economic problem, but it's casted as such by the right; all these measures were a waste of time and money, which could have been used to improve other stuff in the public interest.
There's a decent amount of people that believe immigration should be helped and increased, and the efforts in controlling it have been wrong, and bad, and against the public interest.
There's people, likely on the right, thinking that there's way too many immigrants, and the previous government didn't do enough to address this; it is in the national interest to reduce immigrants, make sure they are all working, but without hijacking the possibilities for French citizens.
Did I guess correctly? Who is The People, and what is the correct National Interest now? Does it by any chance align with your views on immigration (which might or might not align with those of the OP, btw - we can't say much about those since there was no content)?
Which one is better? Because I don't see one.
Don’t worry, we’ll be upset, we love getting upset, but we have to feel like we figured it out. Americans just prefer to bring our outrage from home, rather than have it supplied for us when we get there.
Of course, authortiarians will always pretend there's some mistake or some good intention, once they're exposed, and attack people with labels, when criticism is used against their policies.
Comparing stuff to the great firewall of china is ridiculous. It's like saying things are ok with police in the US because they're not north Korea.
The only recently released the Constitutional Council’s archives, 25 years later, and it’s been quite enlightening.
Our Supreme Court "equivalent" basically approved, enabled, contributed to and hid away blatant fraud, then lied about it for years, all under the guise of avoiding "political consequences".
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/politique/affaire/affaire-karach...