EPT2012 French Presidential Election - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7913 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:24 Incognoto wrote: Sarkozy really needs to get elected. I really don't like him and I think he's a liar. He's kind of an asshole who does a lot of shit under the table for himself and his group of very rich friends. It's honestly horrible. Unfortunately we can't have Hollande as a president. He'll run France into the ground harder than the Titanic ran itself into an iceberg. He doesn't have what it takes to be a president and honestly France is already too far left. We need to go a bit more towards the US-model and less towards the socialist one. I like the "if the left passes" soviet tanks will be on the Champs Elysées / France will sink like the Titanic / financial markets will financially nuke France / we will spend so much money that our debt will go to 700% in one year mantras. It's so easy to scare people. Hollande program is basically a moderate centre right program in terms of economics. As for a US model, English have tried it, and they are in worse shape than us. So you know... | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7913 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
I'm basically asking you why you want to vote for Hollande. This isn't about me, Biff, it's about you. Otolia, you're welcome to also chime in. Furthermore, you still haven't answered my question of where you are from Biff. If it's of any interest to you, I'm from Seine et Marne, I study at Meaux atm. | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
Hollande program is basically a moderate centre right program in terms of economics. Only in france could a socialist be described as 'center right'. Anyway it really doesn't matter what he says during the election campaign, since we all know politicians do nothing but lie and will say anything to obtain power. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:28 Biff The Understudy wrote: I like the "if the left passes" soviet tanks will be on the Champs Elysées / France will sink like the Titanic / financial markets will financially nuke France / we will spend so much money that our debt will go to 700% in one year mantras. It's so easy to scare people. Hollande program is basically a moderate centre right program in terms of economics. As for a US model, English have tried it, and they are in worse shape than us. So you know... Britain has tried the US model? When? The US under Obama has gone the opposite direction from Britain under Cameron, the results have been uninspiring to say the least for both attempts. | ||
|
RJGooner
United States2076 Posts
Maybe people see that it's just rhetoric and he's not serious? | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:04 RJGooner wrote: How does someone like Melenchon get the support that he does? 100% tax on all income over 360,000 euros seems absolutely nutty to me, and yet I've heard he's getting somewhere around 10% in the latest polls. Welcome to Europe. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:04 RJGooner wrote: How does someone like Melenchon get the support that he does? 100% tax on all income over 360,000 euros seems absolutely nutty to me, and yet I've heard he's getting somewhere around 10% in the latest polls. In France you have the 10% that is guaranteed to be nutty far-left economically this time represented by Melenchon, in the US you have the 10% that is guaranteed to be nutty far-right economically represented by Ron Paul. It seems about normal for a country to have 10% of the population being totally off the deep end. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:04 RJGooner wrote: How does someone like Melenchon get the support that he does? 100% tax on all income over 360,000 euros seems absolutely nutty to me, and yet I've heard he's getting somewhere around 10% in the latest polls. Well, just after the second world war, the communist party was the biggest french party with about 30% of the vote. For us French, American politics are more or less extreme right. A bit of context should help you understand =) | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
Did any of you really measure what taxes are for ? And what could be an argument against increasing taxes for people with more money than they'll ever need (except sustaining the french luxus industry perhaps) ? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7913 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:04 DeepElemBlues wrote: Britain has tried the US model? When? The US under Obama has gone the opposite direction from Britain under Cameron, the results have been uninspiring to say the least for both attempts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism Obviously I am not talking of the past three years. Rather the past thirty years, when English and American system have been changed dramatically towards neoliberal doctrines. France, Germany, Nordic Countries, Japan etc... have followed another path, because the political spectrum was economically very far on the left of the Reagan Tatcher crew and their Tories and Republicans heirs. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7913 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:17 Otolia wrote: Somehow it makes more sense for a lot of people to prevent single entities from getting insanely rich than preventing a lot of people to simply live with a decent amount of money. Describing that former kind of ideas as crazy shows how deeply you have absorbed political ideas in the point that you think they are from your own making. Did any of you really measure what taxes are for ? And what could be an argument against increasing taxes for people with more money than they'll ever need (except sustaining the french luxus industry perhaps) ? Actually, Melenchon is everything but a Communist. He is a hardcore socialist, who believes in my opinion a little bit too much that the State always serve general interest (although I trust more the State to do so than big multinational corporations...) I think Melenchon is quite closed to what was the Socialist party thirty years ago. I don't dislike him, and he is certainly not an extremist. He just doesn't really sees the flaws of his ideas. He still makes more sense to me than most right wing politicians. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7913 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:06 DeepElemBlues wrote: In France you have the 10% that is guaranteed to be nutty far-left economically this time represented by Melenchon, in the US you have the 10% that is guaranteed to be nutty far-right economically represented by Ron Paul. It seems about normal for a country to have 10% of the population being totally off the deep end. Funny, I don't know why but I thought you were a libertarian. Anyway, if you want to find a left wing equivalent to Ron Paul in this election, you should really look to Artaud and Poutou. Melenchon is a really abusive parallel, because he is nowhere as fucked up, irrealistic and driven by abstract ideology as the two far left candidate, or by Ron Paul. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism Obviously I am not talking of the past three years. Rather the past thirty years, when English and American system have been changed dramatically towards neoliberal doctrines. France, Germany, Nordic Countries, Japan etc... have followed another path, because the political spectrum was economically very far on the left of the Reagan Tatcher crew and their Tories and Republicans heirs. So Thatcher and Reagan are responsible for the idiocy of New Labour in the UK and George W. Bush's big-government conservatism in America? Thatcher and Reagan's neoliberalism in the 80s fixed the awful problems of the 70s that the policies that "make more sense to you" caused and guaranteed prosperity in the 90s. You're rewriting history and doing it badly. Funny, I don't know why but I thought you were a libertarian. That's not a surprise, European ignorance of American politics is the standard. Much the same way most Americans think everyone in Europe outside of the UK Conservatives has a hammer and sickle flag in their closet. Anyway, if you want to find a left wing equivalent to Ron Paul in this election, you should really look to Artaud and Poutou. Melenchon is a really abusive parallel, because he is nowhere as fucked up, irrealistic and driven by abstract ideology as the two far left candidate, or by Ron Paul. I'm not suggesting Melenchon is equivalent to Ron Paul, I'm suggesting the supporters of both are equivalent. They're the 10% lunatic fringe. Europe's has its own 10% (well, it seems larger than that) right fringe as well, more interested about race than the US, they're all gold standard crazies and get off my lawn gubbmint I'm a sovereign citizen over here. We've done a little bit better job of throwing race crazies entirely out of acceptable politics than the Continent. America's 10% left fringe has burrowed itself into academia and they participate less directly in elections here than in Europe. | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: Because you know, it could mean that people become tolerant or something and stop considering arabs as motorcycle thieves ans black people as slightly evolved monkeys. To be honest she probably doesn't even believe herself that our hitorical studies are not centered anymore on France. She just keeps her strategy of lying outrageously as long as it supports her "we are invaded by arabs and multiculturalist" crap poisonous bullshit. Chauvinistic racist nationalistic close minded morons. I fucking hate the FN. "it could mean that people become tolerant" Yeah right, coz we are all a bunch of racist bastards ? Way to ( not ) explain something in a biased manner dude. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7913 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: So Thatcher and Reagan are responsible for the idiocy of New Labour in the UK and George W. Bush's big-government conservatism in America? Under the ideology of people such as Friedman and a couple of other ultra right criminals, Thatcher and Reagan's neoliberalism in the 80s fixed the awful problems of the 70s that the policies that "make more sense to you" caused and guaranteed prosperity in the 90s. You're rewriting history and doing it badly. Well, my dear, sorry to tell you that we won't agree on that one, and that I won't discuss that with you, because I don't have hours to waste on dumb discussions that lead nowhere. So I'll tell you my version quickly and quit the discussion right there: Tatcher and Reagan introduced massive financial deregulations which took effect in the whole world, and which basically transformed the stock market into a big speculative giant casino and gave free hand to big corporation to fuck up basically everything and everybody. It gave a lot of groth for some time, that's true, an enormous increase of inequalities everywhere, a huge public debt in every single developped country. We are still in the era they introduced, and the crisis we are in is a direct consequence of their dreadful reforms. Bush and the New Labour are responsible for not doing anything about it. You can read the neoliberal article on wikipedia, it's actually quite good. I am out of this discussion with you, because I have already had it numerous times, and I don't think we will agree. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7913 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:37 Marti wrote: "it could mean that people become tolerant" Yeah right, coz we are all a bunch of racist bastards ? Way to ( not ) explain something in a biased manner dude. I am just saying it's better for Marine Le Pen if people learn about French history and nothing else. 20% of people vote for her fascist party, so yeah, racism is already quite a problem. But as I said, she probably just want to keep paranoia alive with the "we are not at home anymore", even if it means lying in such a vulgar way. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:38 Biff The Understudy wrote: Well, my dear, sorry to tell you that we won't agree on that one, and that I won't discuss that with you, because I don't have hours to waste on dumb discussions that lead nowhere. So I'll tell you my version quickly and quit the discussion right there: Tatcher and Reagan introduced massive financial deregulations who took effect in the whole world, and which basically transformed the stock market into a big speculative giant casino and gave free hand to big corporation to fuck up basically everything and everybody. It gave a lot of groth for some time, that's true, an enormous increase of inequalities everywhere, a huge public debt in every single developped country. We are still in the era they introduced, and the crisis we are in is a direct consequence of their dreadful reforms. Bush and the New Labour are responsible for not doing anything about it. You can read the neoliberal article on wikipedia, it's actually quite good. I am out of this discussion with you, because I have already had it numerous times, and I don't think we will agree. Well dear friend sorry but you're wrong. The real version is that Thatcher and Reagan introduced fairly limited deregulations and it was not until the late 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s that big government and big finance was married together. Huge public debt as a ratio of GDP was not introduced, the only inequality was income inequality which is quite frankly a terrible way of judging how well a society is doing, material equality continued to rise as it still does even today. If we were still in the era they'd introduced there wouldn't have been a crisis, neither of them would have entangled government and finance together in such a complex and retarded way. I don't need to read an article on Wikipedia I've read before, nice implication though. Bye! | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Look that hardcore leftist. A true trotskomason LOL | ||
| ||
