Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject:
I really don't think that I've seen or read much about the French elections in the US media, if at all. The only stuff I've read was on an online British newspaper. I believe Sarkozy is leading in the polls, non?
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: FRENCH ELECTIONS
fab wrote:
Is it a popular mediatic subject in your respective countries ?
Yes.
fab wrote:
If it is how are seen the main three candidates ?
The main three candidates? What about the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen, who did alarmingly well last time?
We talk about Sarkozy a lot in French at school actually; I remember my French teacher (who's French, but he's lived in England for about 20 years) describing him as 'the immigrant who doesn't like immigrants', and talking about la politique sarko-lepéniste. But I think that Sarkozy is generally seen as racist.
One of my French friends has told me that he will emigrate to New Zealand if Sarkozy wins the election — in order to be as far away from him as possible.
I haven't noticed any particular criticism of Segolène Royal or François Bayrou.
fab wrote:
which one do you think will be out on sunday evening ?
I'd guess François Bayrou.
However, if I were a French citizen, then I'd probably vote for Dominique Voynet, of the Greens:
Or maybe even for Marie-Georges Buffet, of the French Communist Party:
Last edited by Benjamin [inactive] on Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
" I believe Sarkozy is leading in the polls, non? "
For the moment yes, he still does, at about 27-29% of the intentions.
In fact he is looking for this competition since 5 years...
" The main three candidates? What about the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen, who did alarmingly well last time? "
In fact Le Pen was not stronger than in 1995 or 1988, but it was the socialist candidate which was unusually low after 5 years at the head of the state. This year the conditions are a bit different.
The succes of Le pen at first round was also du to the strong abstention due to the diseapointment of both Chirac and jospin.
This time it seems to be different. Le Pen is quite much lower than 5 years ago. And is not really part of the "main leading candidates" like last time.
For further resons :
- he's almost 80 years old: a lot of his traditional supporters think his time is fininshed
- in 2005 he was at second turn instead of the socialists because the left was very separated in a lot of different candidates - especially the small candidates ones "à la gauche de la gauche", which had provoked a very low score for Jospin. .
- Some succes of le Pen was founded upon the theme of the security. This subject is widely leaded by Sarkozy since 5 years. a lot of people who voted Le Pen because of the fear of insecurity prefer now to vote for Sarkozy because he's seen as more democrat.
" We talk about Sarkozy a lot in French at school actually; I remember my French teacher (who's French, but he's lived in England for about 20 years) describing him has 'the immigrant who doesn't like immigrants', and talking about la politique sarko-lepéniste. But I that Sarkozy is generally seen as racist. "
I think the ideas of Sarkozy and Le Pen are distant in a lot of ways. But both are joining on the question of security.
I see Sarkozy more a bit like a Republican on the American scale - but his economic views are more rigtist than Le Pen's, even if Sarkozy would be seen as a moderate economical liberal by an American point of view.
I persoanlly think Sarkozy as racist in the sence that he thinks in terms of "ethnic" commuities as in Anglosaxon societies (sorry for the word but "anglophone would seem odd in this case), which is badly percieved in France.
Generally speaking he's seen as the one who wants to apply the American model (and more especially US republican party's) of society over France.
but he tries not show it too much because he knows that it is very impopular.
" describing him has 'the immigrant who doesn't like immigrants' "
This is not a surprising fact in France.
If you look at the names of people elected in the list of the National Front, you'll see that many of them have foreign names. (and a lot also who have a "very french" name also can have foreign origins)
" One of my French friends has told me that he will emigrate to New Zealand if Sarkozy wins the election — in order to be as far away from him as possible. "
I personally that's stupid, even if I don't like Sarkozy very much either.
" I'd guess François Bayrou. "
I hope not. He's the best chance to win over Sarkozy.
" However, if I were a French citizen, then I'd probably vote for Dominique Voynet, of the Greens: "
The greens in France doesn't represent a real political party able to rule itself, at the contrary of most countries of northern Europe. Les verts are more like a bit "sectarist" anti-capitalist party that add used the ecological label only for them. I think that they are not a good thing for the ecological preocupations. ecology should be not reserved only for a minoritary radical leftist party.
Voynet is very low (1 or 2%) this year - especially because most of the candidates have taking strong (forced to take, thanks to Hulot) ecological positions. I thint that voting for the green is useless and it helps the loose of the left.
" Or maybe even for Marie-Georges Buffet, of the French Communist Party "
Also a useless vote to my opinion. the communist part is also very low this year (1%). most traditional communist voters prefer to vote socialist to avoid the loose of the left and the possibility to have extreme right beating a weak socialist candidate.
but Olivier Besancenot is, among the numerous extreme-left candidates the only one that seems to have a significative result (5%). He represent the Trotskist party, which plan to make a communist revolution (while the communist party has abandonned the idea)
It is a measure of how France has failed to adapt to the modern world that we still have Trotskyists solemnly declaring to bring about a proletarian revolution in this day and age when communism as an ideal has been so thoroughly discredited.
I find it ridiculous that Sarkozy is seen as a racist. This is selective interpretation at its very best here by some of the members of this forum. Nobody mentioned Sarkozy's proposals in his capacity as Home Secretary to implement positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in France.
Sarkozy is behaving perfectly like any rational leader: keep out the riff-raff illegals who think they can charter a boat from Africa, get into the country and claim asylum. If I were him, I'd also do the same by ordering all sans papiers to be flogged first for having the temerity to enter the country without proper documentation before sending them back to Timbuktu or some other godforsaken land.
But first, we'd need a Karcher powerhose to flush out those buggers.
What is wrong with wanting to keep out undesirable illegal immigrants? Sarkozy's programme includes details on ways to attract qualified workers which the country needs - financial analysists, captains of industry, accountants, etc.
Is there any evidence that he is a racist? Be careful, Benjamin. You do not want to be sued for libel, do you? Unless of course, you define racist as someone who is justifiably worried about illegal immigration.
I think it is ridiculous that nobody here has scrutinised the feeble economic proposals put forward by Le Pen (Ha! Pulling France out of the EU and forego all the farming subsidies she currently receives), Francois Bayrou (no plans whatsoever) and Segolene Royal (raising the minimum wage rate to 3000 euros to 'help pay the bills').
In fact, Sarkozy is not even a true right-wing candidate. If he were a British politician, he'd probably march to the polls under the Labour banner. Sarkozy is in favour of state intervention when it comes to the safeguarding of 'national interests'. If he were an american, I seriously doubt if he'd be a Republican. More likely a moderate Democrat.
Actually, most of the candidates have very dull brains. Most of them have probably never pored through a general ledger. But France would elect the candidate that she deserves.
PS: In my opinion, nobody should be given the right to vote unless he fully understands the economic ramifications of electing any one candidate. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Is it a popular mediatic subject in your respective countries ? Or is it not really spoken about ?
Unfortunately, the coverage in the US media has been exactly nil.
loic wrote:
Be careful, Benjamin. You do not want to be sued for libel, do you?
Huh? From what I've read, that business of slander and libel suits being filed by politicians is mainly a peculiarity of Singapore. Here in the US, nobody would get sued for calling a politician a racist.
It is a measure of how France has failed to adapt to the modern world that we still have Trotskyists solemnly declaring to bring about a proletarian revolution in this day and age when communism as an ideal has been so thoroughly discredited.
Ou peut-être est-ce toi qui es en retard d'une évolution. Note aussi que le mot communisme n'est employé par *aucun* des candidats d'extrême gauche. C'est un signe des temps : l'idéologie a marqué le pas face à la constitution de mouvements sociaux actifs.
loic wrote:
I find it ridiculous that Sarkozy is seen as a racist. This is selective interpretation at its very best here by some of the members of this forum. Nobody mentioned Sarkozy's proposals in his capacity as Home Secretary to implement positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in France.
Le passage de Sarkozy à l'Intérieur a été une suite ininterrompue d'échecs retentissants dont le plus connu est les émeutes de novembre 2005. Mais l'explosion de la violence aux personnes physiques est également une défaite cuisante à mettre au passif de Sarkozy. Enfin, en ce qui concerne l'égalité des chances, c'est plutôt à Dominique de Villepin & Azouz Begag (celui que Sarkozy appelle le « connard » [sic]) qu'il faut rendre hommage.
loic wrote:
Sarkozy is behaving perfectly like any rational leader: keep out the riff-raff illegals who think they can charter a boat from Africa, get into the country and claim asylum.
Absolument pas ! Sarkozy est un agité du bocal et un malade mental incapable de mener une politique cohérente (bonne ou mauvaise) à son terme. De ce fait il perdra sur ses deux flancs : à gauche pour avoir tenté de violer les valeurs républicaines, à droite pour n'avoir pas accompli ce qu'il prétend avoir réalisé.
loic wrote:
What is wrong with wanting to keep out undesirable illegal immigrants? Sarkozy's programme includes details on ways to attract qualified workers which the country needs - financial analysists, captains of industry, accountants, etc.
Ce qui est très mauvais c'est de piquer les élites africaines pour les faire venir en France alors que l'Afrique en a grandement besoin pour se développer. Et si la France sarkozyenne pille la matière grise africaine, alors l'immigration redoublera de vigueur car seul le développement permet de fixer les populations.
loic wrote:
(...) Segolene Royal (raising the minimum wage rate to 3000 euros to 'help pay the bills').
Tu t'es mal renseigné : l'objectif est 1.500 euros mensuels.
loic wrote:
In fact, Sarkozy is not even a true right-wing candidate.
Tu veux probablement dire que Sarkozy ne représente pas la droite anglo-saxonne. Tu as parfaitement raison. Ça ne veut pas dire pour autant qu'il ne lui est pas inféodé. Son voyage aux États-Unis lui coûtera cher. Très cher.
Plus sur Sarkozy et les problèmes que semble lui poser sa petite taille ici.
loic wrote:
But France would elect the candidate that she deserves.
En tout cas, chez nous, on élit par *deux fois* et *directement* notre chef de l'État. Ni Singapour ni les États-Unis ne peuvent en dire autant.
loic wrote:
In my opinion, nobody should be given the right to vote unless he fully understands the economic ramifications of electing any one candidate.
Lazar: Under common law, an individual can be sued under tort of defamation. Defamation occurs when a statement that is published lowers the victim's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. I do not agree with the Singaporean leaders' propensity to sue the pants off anybody who slanders the government for defamation, but you must understand that such a course of restitution exists in English common law.
Sarkozy might have made hardline rhetorical statements, but to label him as a racist is not only dangerously far-fetched, but borders on the absurd. It is no different from critics of Israel's West Bank policies being labelled as anti-Semites. It is a very easy and convenient blanket statement to make: call Sarkozy a racist and thrust that sole characteristic of his into the spotlight while putting the real substance of his electoral programme in the shade.
Greg:
Quote:
Es-tu sûr de pouvoir obtenir ce droit de vote ?
Beaucoup mieux qualifié que beaucoup de monde. Je m’intéresses à l’économie politique. Par contre, je crois que la plupart des électeurs ignorent des projets économiques de tous les candidats et ils s’en fichent. Pour eux, ils tiennent aux personnalités des candidats et à mon avis, c’est une mauvaise façon de choisir un president.
Je regardais une émission sur le programme proposé par Sarkozy il y a quinze jours. J’admire beaucoup son programme qui aborde tous les thèmes, de la sécurité aux 35 heures, de l’immigration à l’enseignement et aux salaires. Ses arguments pour le changement du paysage politique de la France – <<la rupture tranquille>> soi-disant- étaient très raisonnables.
Si Sarkozy étaient élu le prochain Président, on pourrait connaître une amélioration des liens trans-atlantique entre les Etats-Unis et la France. Par contre, la gauche reste très soupçonneuse des Etats-Unis. J’ai envie de te poser une question, Greg: Pourquoi la gauche a peur de la mondialisation?
Dernier point: Sarkozy est aussi un bon chrétien. On ne peut pas dire la même chose pour la candidate du Parti Socialiste. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
One of my French friends has told me that he will emigrate to New Zealand if Sarkozy wins the election — in order to be as far away from him as possible. "
I personally that's stupid, even if I don't like Sarkozy very much either.
Although that's obviously an extreme view, I think it's perfectly fine to move to a different country because you don't like the political situation in the country in which you live. I'll admit that part of the appeal which Scotland has for me is that it is considerably more left-wing than England; for example, in the government's social attitudes survey a year or so ago, it was revealed that about 68% of people in Scotland believed that wealth should be distributed equally, compared to about 34% in England.
fab wrote:
The greens in France doesn't represent a real political party able to rule itself, at the contrary of most countries of northern Europe. Les verts are more like a bit "sectarist" anti-capitalist party that add used the ecological label only for them.
Actually, both the Green Party of England and Wales, and the Scottish Green Party, could be described as being more similar to Les Verts of France than to Die Grünen ('The Greens', in Germany) or to GroenLinks ('GreenLeft', in the Netherlands). I would actually criticise both Die Grünen and GroenLinks for being insufficiently left-wing, and not 'green' enough.
However, I suppose the other way of looking at it is that Die Grünen and GroenLinks actually do have notable political significance (thanks to their more 'moderate' platform), whereas Les Verts and the Green Party of England and Wales do not really. An exception to this is the Scottish Green Party, who have had some success in the Scottish Parliament — although one could say that this is because there are enough people in Scotland with very left-wing views anyway to make those sorts of policies seem worthwhile. (In the 2003 Scottish Parliament Election, the combined votes of the Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party [which is much more left-wing than the Parti socialiste in France] was about 14% — not much lower than the Conservatives, who got about 16%).
It is a measure of how France has failed to adapt to the modern world that we still have Trotskyists solemnly declaring to bring about a proletarian revolution in this day and age when communism as an ideal has been so thoroughly discredited.
People with those sorts of views exist in most countries; I don't see how France is an exception here.
loic wrote:
Nobody mentioned Sarkozy's proposals in his capacity as Home Secretary to implement positive discrimination for ethnic minorities in France.
Positive discrimination for ethnic minorities — a policy which is arguably racist in itself. I do not support positive discrimination in favour of ethnic minorities. It is unfair, as evidenced by my friend from New Zealand, who receives significantly more financial support than most New Zealanders whilst she's at university (in New Zealand), simply because one of her grandmothers was a Maori. Instead, I support positive discrimination in favour of poorer people.
loic wrote:
If I were him, I'd also do the same by ordering all sans papiers to be flogged first for having the temerity to enter the country without proper documentation before sending them back to Timbuktu or some other godforsaken land.
But first, we'd need a Karcher powerhose to flush out those buggers.
I really don't know how to react to this suggestion — other than to say that I am absolutely horrified by it.
loic wrote:
Sarkozy is behaving perfectly like any rational leader: keep out the riff-raff illegals who think they can charter a boat from Africa, get into the country and claim asylum.
...
What is wrong with wanting to keep out undesirable illegal immigrants? Sarkozy's programme includes details on ways to attract qualified workers which the country needs - financial analysists, captains of industry, accountants, etc.
I believe that those of us in the developed world, most of whom are in our fortunate (on a global scale) positions in life through no merit of our own, have a humanitarian responsibility to help those who are less fortunate in whatever way we can. One the one hand, this does not include preventing people from the underdeveloped world from having access to more opportunities. On the other hand, this does not include encouraging the social élites of the underdeveloped world to move permanently to the developed world either, because that does not help the underdeveloped world.
loic wrote:
Is there any evidence that he is a racist? Be careful, Benjamin. You do not want to be sued for libel, do you?
Like in the United States (as Lazar described), that sort of thing simply does not happen here. People accuse the likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Prescott of all sorts of things like that all the time, but they'd never sue anyone over it.
loic wrote:
I think it is ridiculous that nobody here has scrutinised the feeble economic proposals put forward by Le Pen
I would have thought that the neo-fascist social policies of Le Pen would be enough to mean that no-one on here would actually consider supporting him — regardless of his economic policies. In truth, as a supporter of the Green Party, I actually find that I agree with some of the British National Party's economic policies. However, I would definitely not consider voting for the British National Party.
loic wrote:
In fact, Sarkozy is not even a true right-wing candidate. If he were a British politician, he'd probably march to the polls under the Labour banner.
Maybe, although I doubt that his attitude towards immigration and his social policies generally would find much favour within the Labour Party.
loic wrote:
Dernier point: Sarkozy est aussi un bon chrétien. On ne peut pas dire la même chose pour la candidate du Parti Socialiste.
Nicholas Sarkozy, George Bush, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and Silvio Berlusconi are all practicing Christians. But how they manage to reconcile some of their policies with Christianity, I do not know.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject:
Benjamin wrote:
loic wrote:
If I were him, I'd also do the same by ordering all sans papiers to be flogged first for having the temerity to enter the country without proper documentation before sending them back to Timbuktu or some other godforsaken land.
But first, we'd need a Karcher powerhose to flush out those buggers.
I really don't know how to react to this suggestion — other than to say that I am absolutely horrified by it.
My sentiments exactly.
Quote:
loic wrote:
Dernier point: Sarkozy est aussi un bon chrétien. On ne peut pas dire la même chose pour la candidate du Parti Socialiste.
Nicholas Sarkozy, George Bush, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and Silvio Berlusconi are all practicing Christians. But how they manage to reconcile some of their policies with Christianity, I do not know.
Even though some of my favorite people on langcafe are Christians, the fact that a candidate is a "good Christian" is not a selling point for mr.
If I were him, I'd also do the same by ordering all sans papiers to be flogged first for having the temerity to enter the country without proper documentation before sending them back to Timbuktu or some other godforsaken land.
But first, we'd need a Karcher powerhose to flush out those buggers.
I really don't know how to react to this suggestion — other than to say that I am absolutely horrified by it.
My sentiments exactly.
Loic!!!! how cruel!!! Those people didn't commit some crimes or bad things - they want only to have money for their family to live without constant problems of hunger, poverty, repression etc......
If the wealth of the world were justly distributed then it wouldn't be necessary that those people would enter a country without the documentation. I think that nobody don't emigrate in such a way for have some fun: it's desperation.
why havn't you compassion for them? I don't understand it at all when rich people in rich countries will be so cruel when very poor people try to survive, and for surivive it's necessary travel to a rich country. Also, in the past the rich countrys have stole many riches of the poor countrys and therefore this unjust divide was become larger, then the rich countrys charged them debts and interest. Corrupt, unjust, cruel!!!!!!
Then to insult fellow human beings like this!!!! You are fortunate that you are born in Singapore, I in Belgium etc....we didn't nothing for this fortune, and it's the same for those people in Mali, Congo etc..
loic hat Folgendes geschrieben: « In my opinion, nobody should be given the right to vote unless he fully understands the economic ramifications of electing any one candidate. »
loic wrote:
Greg:
Quote:
Es-tu sûr de pouvoir obtenir ce droit de vote ?
Beaucoup mieux qualifié que beaucoup de monde. Je m’intéresses à l’économie politique. Par contre, je crois que la plupart des électeurs ignorent des projets économiques de tous les candidats et ils s’en fichent. Pour eux, ils tiennent aux personnalités des candidats et à mon avis, c’est une mauvaise façon de choisir un president.
C'est un peu facile. Pour les économistes hyperpolitisés de l'altermondialisme, tes vues économiques seraient considérées comme de simples billevesées. « Vérité au delà des Pyrénées, erreur en deçà », comme disait Pascal. C'est la raison pour laquelle l'argument de la "compétence" économique est irrecevable : l'économie est par nature sujette à interprétation. Par ailleurs, et si l'on devait suivre ton idée de citoyenneté sélective, qui jugerait de la "compétence" en économie ? Et pourquoi restreindre l'exigence de "compétence" au seul domaine de l'économie ? Un diplôme en philosophie ou en sciences politiques ne serait-il pas plus indiqué pour déterminer l'élite électorale que tu appelles de tes vœux ?
loic wrote:
Je regardais une émission sur le programme proposé par Sarkozy il y a quinze jours. J’admire beaucoup son programme qui aborde tous les thèmes, de la sécurité aux 35 heures, de l’immigration à l’enseignement et aux salaires.
C'est le moins qu'on puisse attendre de la part d'un candidat à l'Élysée : être capable de s'exprimer sur tous les sujets. En revanche, les Français n'attendent pas d'un futur chef de l'État qu'il s'exprime comme un premier ministre ou un simple préfet. Or c'est exactement ce que Sarkozy se contente de faire : il n'a aucune envergure (au sens propre comme au figuré).
loic wrote:
Si Sarkozy étaient élu le prochain Président, on pourrait connaître une amélioration des liens trans-atlantique entre les Etats-Unis et la France. Par contre, la gauche reste très soupçonneuse des Etats-Unis. J’ai envie de te poser une question, Greg: Pourquoi la gauche a peur de la mondialisation?
La gauche n'a pas peur de la mondialisation. Elle combat la mondialisation unijambiste — c'est-à-dire uniquement capitaliste. Par contre elle se bat pour la mondialisation sociale. En ce sens, des pays comme la France et l'Allemagne sont des précurseurs.
Les liens entre la France et les États-Unis sont excellents, compte tenu de la situation générée par les folles provocations de Bush et les pitoyables aternoiements des démocrates. Elles ne seront pas meilleures (ni pires) sous Sarkozy : Sarkozy s'est déjà parjuré devant les Français après avoir dénigré son propre pays devant Bush. Ce pauvre type n'a rien dans le pantalon. Ç'aurait été une attitude présidentielle que de s'abstenir de critiquer la France à l'étranger ; mais Sarkozy et président ne vont vraiment pas ensemble.
loic wrote:
Dernier point: Sarkozy est aussi un bon chrétien. On ne peut pas dire la même chose pour la candidate du Parti Socialiste.
Je dirais plutôt que Sarkozy est un opportuniste de bas-étage et, au mieux, un vulgaire déiste (ce n'est pas une diatribe contre les religions mais une attaque contre l'exploitation politique du fait religieux). Sarkozy est un vrai Tartuffe : judéophile avec les juifs, pro-islam avec les musulmans, christianolâtre avec les chrétiens, scientologue avec Tom Cruise ; mais chez lui la laïcité n'a aucun sens. À cet égard, Bayrou (un *vrai* chrétien) est un laïc convaincu.
Les deux hommes à talonnettes se sont vus à Bercy quand l'infâme petit maire de Neuilly sévissait encore comme ministre des finances. La discussion n'a certainement pas porté sur le Festival de Cannes mais plutôt sur les moyens de faire passer la secte de Cruise dans la catégorie "religions" et lui épargner ainsi des millions d'impôts.
Non mais regardez-moi ç'te tronche de fourbe psychopathe !...
Segolène Royal est quasiment au maximum de son potentiel - ce ne sont pas les quelques pourcents de l'extreme gauche qui pourront faire la différence.
Oui, peut-être, mais Sarkozy aussi. Je pense qu'il a rassemblé le maximum qu'il pouvait et si par hasard (pour une raison ou une autre) il n'obtenait pas les votes de Le Pen (ce qui paraîtrait fort étonnant) il risquerait la défaite. J'ai essayé de calculer rapidement (selon les premiers résultats) le pourcentage possible de Royale au deuxième tour en ralliant les partis de gauches et la moitié de Bayrou, et elle arriverait à environ 41-42%. Mais bon, tout va se jouer sur les positions de Le Pen et Bayrou.
Quote:
Bref, en votant Royal, la gauche va probalement faire élire Sarkozy.
Je serais vraiment déçue si Sarkozy sortait vainqueur du deuxième tour, car la France sombrerait dans une dictature (et je ne suis pas la seule à le penser!)
_________________ Karout hep bezañ karet
A zo kriz ha kalet
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
