2012 French Presidential Election - Page 27

On April 23 2012 22:47 tekos44 wrote:


it's actually ~0.01%, 5000 people in France earn more than 1M euro per year

On April 23 2012 23:39 TanTzoR wrote:



Stop with that seriously. The FN has racist roots, and it's main members are racist for sure. But if you look at the program itself there is nothing racist. She even proposed to renovate all the banlieues and systematically repair any damage (elle interview). Marine Lepen stated multiple times that she considers french people of equal importance whatever their race/religion. Does she really think it? Not sure, but that's another matter.

Most of the people vote for her because:
-Leave Europe, they think it's not sustainable nothing racist about that
-Reduce immigration, again you may want to reduce immigration without being racist. But just thinking that we can't worthily receive new inmigrants.
-Protesters who are like "fuck it"

Maybe something like 20% are racists, which would be around 5% of the total population.

I totally disagree with Lepen's program and I actually voted Bayrou but I'm really annoyed by people going on "20% of the population is racist, what a racist country".

On April 24 2012 00:30 FaRess wrote:


I don't know where to start,this is ridiculous, did you read the program you're talking about ?????

On April 24 2012 00:31 TanTzoR wrote:


Top to bottom. Shall you start?

On April 24 2012 00:06 Kukaracha wrote:
It has to do with xenophobia. There is no way to reduce immigration down to 10 000 per year without a great display of violence.

On April 24 2012 00:33 FaRess wrote:


Ok give me a rational explanation about why a human being can't have 2 nationalities, let's go

On April 24 2012 00:23 Logros wrote:

If that 75% tax policy goes through I think it'll soon be closer to 500. I don't think many people will stay in a country where they have to give up 3 of every 4 euro's they make.

On April 24 2012 00:23 Logros wrote:

If that 75% tax policy goes through I think it'll soon be closer to 500. I don't think many people will stay in a country where they have to give up 3 of every 4 euro's they make.

On April 24 2012 00:37 Oshuy wrote:


I don't know what "great display of violence" means in this context.

I would agree that voting for unrestrained repression against immigration is xenophobic, my point is that a majority of Front National voters would not vote for unrestrained repression. I am not even sure that immigration is a major factor in their vote at all.

This point would be reason enough for me not to vote for them. But it's 1 point out of 136 in their program. I believe a large number of their voters chose the Front National despite this point, not because of it.

On April 23 2012 23:17 Incognoto wrote:


Where are you getting those numbers? Sources please.



I'm kind of unsurprised that Hollande dodged debates with Sarko. Sarko has many faults but he's got charisma, as well as having an agenda that makes more sense than Hollande's. But what does that tell you about Hollande? He's ahead in votes and he refuses to have more than one debate with Sarkozy? Does he not trust his ideas? Or himself? How the hell is he going to be credible on an international level if he doesn't even want to debate? His excuse of "oh yeah sarkozy lost and now he wants to debate more and break tradition?" Fuck that, that's a pathetic excuse, winning by 1,5% isn't winning, especially considering how many people voted Le Pen.

If anything I really, really want to hear an extensive debate between them both.

But yeah already the refusal to debate is making me lean towards Sarkozy. In an ideal world, politics is about debating what the best course of action is in the face of a certain situation. It's not about defending a measly 1,5% for ego purposes. I'm going to go on a limb here and say that Hollande is going to get ridiculed by Sarko in the one debate they're going to actually have.

On April 24 2012 00:23 Logros wrote:

If that 75% tax policy goes through I think it'll soon be closer to 500. I don't think many people will stay in a country where they have to give up 3 of every 4 euro's they make.

On April 24 2012 00:50 Kukaracha wrote:


To reduce immigration to 10 000 people a year max is one of the key points of her program.

It's not like the country is already very friendly towards immigrants : in cities near Calais, they live in abandoned houses, rely on civilian organizations to eat, and the police has implicit orders to make life difficult for them. Many organizations reported violence or disturbances from police officers.
As for legal immigration, it ends up in what we call cités, which are essentially immense suburbian ghettos.

The FN considers this too soft, and aims to divide immigration by 10 or 15.
To enforce this, I see no other solution than an even greater use of violence and worse conditions of life for newcomers.

On April 24 2012 00:50 Kukaracha wrote:


To reduce immigration to 10 000 people a year max is one of the key points of her program.

It's not like the country is already very friendly towards immigrants : in cities near Calais, they live in abandoned houses, rely on civilian organizations to eat, and the police has implicit orders to make life difficult for them. Many organizations reported violence or disturbances from police officers.
As for legal immigration, it ends up in what we call cités, which are essentially immense suburbian ghettos.

The FN considers this too soft, and aims to divide immigration by 10 or 15.
To enforce this, I see no other solution than an even greater use of violence and worse conditions of life for newcomers.

On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote:
You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.

This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.

So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.


And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.

On April 23 2012 23:25 Incognoto wrote:


Yeah charisma plays a huge part in TV debates for sure, you're right about that. That said, having charisma in international relations is something that's pretty important. I also believe that a smart person (granted not a wide-spread gift ;p) can attempt to look past the charismatic aspect of the debate and attempt to see actual political content.


Edit: I think Chirac vs Le Pen is a different story because Le Pen is an actual nutter and there's no need to debate to know that. You can't have a real debate with an extremist, but between two non-extremist parties you can.

On April 24 2012 04:33 SiroKO wrote:


Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet.
It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.

Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.

On April 24 2012 00:45 Agathon wrote:


It's 75% of your income above 1 million per a year, not 75% of the million. Nobody will pay 3 of 4 euros he makes.

If someone gets 1 100 100 € per year, he would have to pay 75% of the 100 000, but the million would be taxed at the normal rate.

On April 24 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:


Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.

Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.

On April 23 2012 22:17 Agathon wrote:


ROFL, no.

The mother of his children (former presidential election candidate in 2007, lost vs Sarkozy at the 2nd round) :




His actual GF :



Not homosexual, at least not publicly.

On April 24 2012 05:15 kwizach wrote:

Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.