|
On April 24 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 22:34 Otolia wrote:
How are any of these posts related to the french election ?
We are not discussing the socialist party theories, nor are we discussing the advantage of the US system of the french system. Take your crap out of this thread. Dunno, I didn't start it, but I'm happy to stop, since I've pretty much said what I want to. On topic, a vote for Sarkozy is a vote for Merkel's disastrous austerity-mad economic policy that is destroying the Eurozone economy, causing mass unemployment, no growth, and general misery. This graph says a lot: ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/04/23/opinion/042312krugman1/042312krugman1-blog480.jpg) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/austerity-and-growth-again-wonkish/
Actually Merkel and Sarkozy don't completely agree on every point, and it's not just Merkel but germans.
|
I thought Sarkozy was more on the center left and overtime moved more towards the center right, I also thought his target was the center both right and left, not on the right wing tendency... It's pretty clear aswell the last years left wing policies havent been very effective, specially considering a far right daughter of an holocaust denier and pro nazi invaded france got a 18%..
Best lucks to all the French posters in the TL community, and remember the vote is the most precious act of our citizenship, people fighted for it for over 2500 years, so dont take it for granted, go vote, make a difference.
|
On April 24 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 22:34 Otolia wrote:
How are any of these posts related to the french election ?
We are not discussing the socialist party theories, nor are we discussing the advantage of the US system of the french system. Take your crap out of this thread. Dunno, I didn't start it, but I'm happy to stop, since I've pretty much said what I want to. On topic, a vote for Sarkozy is a vote for Merkel's disastrous austerity-mad economic policy that is destroying the Eurozone economy, causing mass unemployment, no growth, and general misery. This graph says a lot: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/austerity-and-growth-again-wonkish/
At first I was shocked by the 10% rise in GDP, then I discovered it was over 2 years. Any idea which countries are at the top and bottom of that scale?
|
One thing striked me : the results published at 8 o'clock were Sarkozy 25% Le Pen 20% (still surveys)
On the next morning the official results were all the same as the estimations except Sarkozy 27% Le Pen 18%
Why all year long were surveys announced with a 0.5 point precision while even the actual results are announced with a 2 point precision !
I believe the scores announced were changed on purpose to accentuate the impression that Hollande and Le Pen were the big winners. Same thing when 1 hour later they announce surveys that Hollande would win the 2nd round with 54% and next day with 56%. The 1st round results are announced and then quickly after you're told what you're supposed to vote. Surveys are manipulating people once again. Beside the fact that results will be much much closer (and I'm not sure Hollande will win), it's obviously a tactic to insinuate Hollande is so ahead that you can get away with a white/null vote.
A few minutes after the results anouncement Mélenchon said to not take care about pronostics or impressions (and to vote against Sarkozy). So even though in my opinion it looked as if Sarkozy would win he knew the results would be made to insinuate Hollande is way ahead and that you can get away with a blank vote. It's not as simple.
I'm still not changing my mind about my vote though.
|
On April 25 2012 01:54 BerserKr wrote:
I thought Sarkozy was more on the center left and overtime moved more towards the center right, I also thought his target was the center both right and left, not on the right wing tendency... It's pretty clear aswell the last years left wing policies havent been very effective, specially considering a far right daughter of an holocaust denier and pro nazi invaded france got a 18%..
Best lucks to all the French posters in the TL community, and remember the vote is the most precious act of our citizenship, people fighted for it for over 2500 years, so dont take it for granted, go vote, make a difference.
Well Sarkozy is a pretty weird candidate because he belongs to the traditional right but is completely progressive when his followers and collaborators are very conservative. His behaviour was deemed scandalous by many, so he was eventually forced to show a little more restrain in his action and speeches.
The current problem is that he's trying to reach the far right when the members of his party range from the center to the right. He's taking a big risk, and some members of the UMP have already left the movement because of this. This could greatly benefit to Bayrou, who's a center-right catholic politician with great ideas but little support. He's much more conservative, oddly enough, much closer to the traditional catholic right.
On the other hand, Hollande is a member of the "gauche caviar", and not really a socialist. If anything, he belongs to the center left. In the end, the difference with Sarkozy isn't as strong as it looks like.
|
On April 25 2012 02:01 chuky500 wrote:
One thing striked me : the results published at 8 o'clock were Sarkozy 25% Le Pen 20% (still surveys)
On the next morning the official results were all the same as the estimations except Sarkozy 27% Le Pen 18%
even worse, depending which channel you were watching, numbers weren't the same (surprisingly, TF1 was giving better score to sarkozy)
the real result is all you need:
http://elections.interieur.gouv.fr/PR2012/FE.html
|
On April 25 2012 02:40 DOUDOU wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 02:01 chuky500 wrote:
One thing striked me : the results published at 8 o'clock were Sarkozy 25% Le Pen 20% (still surveys)
On the next morning the official results were all the same as the estimations except Sarkozy 27% Le Pen 18% even worse, depending which channel you were watching, numbers weren't the same (surprisingly, TF1 was giving better score to sarkozy) the real result is all you need: http://elections.interieur.gouv.fr/PR2012/FE.html
It's normal guys the numbers they give at 8 pm are still temporary results that's why the end results differs, they are still counting when they announce at 8 pm
|
On April 25 2012 02:22 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 01:54 BerserKr wrote:
I thought Sarkozy was more on the center left and overtime moved more towards the center right, I also thought his target was the center both right and left, not on the right wing tendency... It's pretty clear aswell the last years left wing policies havent been very effective, specially considering a far right daughter of an holocaust denier and pro nazi invaded france got a 18%..
Best lucks to all the French posters in the TL community, and remember the vote is the most precious act of our citizenship, people fighted for it for over 2500 years, so dont take it for granted, go vote, make a difference. Well Sarkozy is a pretty weird candidate because he belongs to the traditional right but is completely progressive when his followers and collaborators are very conservative. His behaviour was deemed scandalous by many, so he was eventually forced to show a little more restrain in his action and speeches. The current problem is that he's trying to reach the far right when the members of his party range from the center to the right. He's taking a big risk, and some members of the UMP have already left the movement because of this. This could greatly benefit to Bayrou, who's a center-right catholic politician with great ideas but little support. He's much more conservative, oddly enough, much closer to the traditional catholic right. On the other hand, Hollande is a member of the "gauche caviar", and not really a socialist. If anything, he belongs to the center left. In the end, the difference with Sarkozy isn't as strong as it looks like.
The socialist party is now a social democrat one like almost every other big left wing party in europe. It was bound to happen. The appellation "gauche caviar" doesn't make any sense nowadays considering that most regular socialists voters are very much center-left.
|
I count votes in my town and it's finished by 6:45. Only big towns like Paris, Lyon, Marseille start counting at 8. What's wierd is only Sarkozy and Le pen were wrong and by a big margin, the other ones were exact.
|
On April 25 2012 03:21 FaRess wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 02:40 DOUDOU wrote:On April 25 2012 02:01 chuky500 wrote:
One thing striked me : the results published at 8 o'clock were Sarkozy 25% Le Pen 20% (still surveys)
On the next morning the official results were all the same as the estimations except Sarkozy 27% Le Pen 18% even worse, depending which channel you were watching, numbers weren't the same (surprisingly, TF1 was giving better score to sarkozy) the real result is all you need: http://elections.interieur.gouv.fr/PR2012/FE.html It's normal guys the numbers they give at 8 pm are still temporary results that's why the end results differs, they are still counting when they announce at 8 pm
it's normal the first result differs from the official counting of the day after
it's not normal the first result differs from one channel to another, they have access to the very same data and unveil them at the very same second
|
On April 25 2012 04:17 chuky500 wrote:
I count votes in my town and it's finished by 6:45. Only big towns like Paris, Lyon, Marseille start counting at 8. What's wierd is only Sarkozy and Le pen were wrong and by a big margin, the other ones were exact.
Election fraud?
|
On April 25 2012 05:19 gnatinator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 04:17 chuky500 wrote:
I count votes in my town and it's finished by 6:45. Only big towns like Paris, Lyon, Marseille start counting at 8. What's wierd is only Sarkozy and Le pen were wrong and by a big margin, the other ones were exact. Election fraud?
Extrapolation error.
I do not deny that there have been some electoral frauds in France not so long ago but if there are right now it shouldn't have a big influence.
|
On April 25 2012 05:16 DOUDOU wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 03:21 FaRess wrote:On April 25 2012 02:40 DOUDOU wrote:On April 25 2012 02:01 chuky500 wrote:
One thing striked me : the results published at 8 o'clock were Sarkozy 25% Le Pen 20% (still surveys)
On the next morning the official results were all the same as the estimations except Sarkozy 27% Le Pen 18% even worse, depending which channel you were watching, numbers weren't the same (surprisingly, TF1 was giving better score to sarkozy) the real result is all you need: http://elections.interieur.gouv.fr/PR2012/FE.html It's normal guys the numbers they give at 8 pm are still temporary results that's why the end results differs, they are still counting when they announce at 8 pm it's normal the first result differs from the official counting of the day after it's not normal the first result differs from one channel to another, they have access to the very same data and unveil them at the very same second
They don't have access to the same results because it's done by poll institutes. Its not official results.
Channels use different results from different institutes.
For example : TNS-Sofres (TF1) - IPSOS (France 2)
|
On April 25 2012 01:54 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 24 2012 22:34 Otolia wrote:
How are any of these posts related to the french election ?
We are not discussing the socialist party theories, nor are we discussing the advantage of the US system of the french system. Take your crap out of this thread. Dunno, I didn't start it, but I'm happy to stop, since I've pretty much said what I want to. On topic, a vote for Sarkozy is a vote for Merkel's disastrous austerity-mad economic policy that is destroying the Eurozone economy, causing mass unemployment, no growth, and general misery. This graph says a lot: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/austerity-and-growth-again-wonkish/ At first I was shocked by the 10% rise in GDP, then I discovered it was over 2 years. Any idea which countries are at the top and bottom of that scale?
The original source is here:
http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/eurozone-austerity-by-numbers.html
Over 10% are Slovakia, Estonia, Finland, Malta, Luxemburg,
|
On April 25 2012 12:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 01:54 aksfjh wrote:On April 24 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 24 2012 22:34 Otolia wrote:
How are any of these posts related to the french election ?
We are not discussing the socialist party theories, nor are we discussing the advantage of the US system of the french system. Take your crap out of this thread. Dunno, I didn't start it, but I'm happy to stop, since I've pretty much said what I want to. On topic, a vote for Sarkozy is a vote for Merkel's disastrous austerity-mad economic policy that is destroying the Eurozone economy, causing mass unemployment, no growth, and general misery. This graph says a lot: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/austerity-and-growth-again-wonkish/ At first I was shocked by the 10% rise in GDP, then I discovered it was over 2 years. Any idea which countries are at the top and bottom of that scale? The original source is here: http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/eurozone-austerity-by-numbers.htmlOver 10% are Slovakia, Estonia, Finland, Malta, Luxemburg,
I am not a big supporter of the austerity measures as they are done now, but those numbers are not an argument against them. Those numbers are only argument against people who say : "If you implement those austerity measures you will always see GDP growth in short term" and "If you do not implement austerity measures your GDP will not grow". There are not many people who say that so it is not argument against anything really.
|
On April 25 2012 04:17 chuky500 wrote:
I count votes in my town and it's finished by 6:45. Only big towns like Paris, Lyon, Marseille start counting at 8. What's wierd is only Sarkozy and Le pen were wrong and by a big margin, the other ones were exact.
thing is Le pen got a significantly lower % in every big city (except Marseille and Nice) so it seems logical to me that her score would fall once you start counting in these big cities
|
On April 25 2012 02:01 chuky500 wrote:
One thing striked me : the results published at 8 o'clock were Sarkozy 25% Le Pen 20% (still surveys)
On the next morning the official results were all the same as the estimations except Sarkozy 27% Le Pen 18%
Why all year long were surveys announced with a 0.5 point precision while even the actual results are announced with a 2 point precision !
I believe the scores announced were changed on purpose to accentuate the impression that Hollande and Le Pen were the big winners. Same thing when 1 hour later they announce surveys that Hollande would win the 2nd round with 54% and next day with 56%. The 1st round results are announced and then quickly after you're told what you're supposed to vote. Surveys are manipulating people once again. Beside the fact that results will be much much closer (and I'm not sure Hollande will win), it's obviously a tactic to insinuate Hollande is so ahead that you can get away with a white/null vote.
A few minutes after the results anouncement Mélenchon said to not take care about pronostics or impressions (and to vote against Sarkozy). So even though in my opinion it looked as if Sarkozy would win he knew the results would be made to insinuate Hollande is way ahead and that you can get away with a blank vote. It's not as simple.
I'm still not changing my mind about my vote though.
The surveys had a 3% precision where your 0.5% comes from? (samples are always around 1000ish)
On April 25 2012 02:22 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 01:54 BerserKr wrote:
I thought Sarkozy was more on the center left and overtime moved more towards the center right, I also thought his target was the center both right and left, not on the right wing tendency... It's pretty clear aswell the last years left wing policies havent been very effective, specially considering a far right daughter of an holocaust denier and pro nazi invaded france got a 18%..
Best lucks to all the French posters in the TL community, and remember the vote is the most precious act of our citizenship, people fighted for it for over 2500 years, so dont take it for granted, go vote, make a difference. Well Sarkozy is a pretty weird candidate because he belongs to the traditional right but is completely progressive when his followers and collaborators are very conservative. His behaviour was deemed scandalous by many, so he was eventually forced to show a little more restrain in his action and speeches. The current problem is that he's trying to reach the far right when the members of his party range from the center to the right. He's taking a big risk, and some members of the UMP have already left the movement because of this. This could greatly benefit to Bayrou, who's a center-right catholic politician with great ideas but little support. He's much more conservative, oddly enough, much closer to the traditional catholic right. On the other hand, Hollande is a member of the "gauche caviar", and not really a socialist. If anything, he belongs to the center left. In the end, the difference with Sarkozy isn't as strong as it looks like.
Sarkozy progressive? In which word? He was never a real liberal and bonapartism isn't really near progressism in every way...
|
On April 25 2012 20:59 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 02:22 Kukaracha wrote:On April 25 2012 01:54 BerserKr wrote:
I thought Sarkozy was more on the center left and overtime moved more towards the center right, I also thought his target was the center both right and left, not on the right wing tendency... It's pretty clear aswell the last years left wing policies havent been very effective, specially considering a far right daughter of an holocaust denier and pro nazi invaded france got a 18%..
Best lucks to all the French posters in the TL community, and remember the vote is the most precious act of our citizenship, people fighted for it for over 2500 years, so dont take it for granted, go vote, make a difference. Well Sarkozy is a pretty weird candidate because he belongs to the traditional right but is completely progressive when his followers and collaborators are very conservative. His behaviour was deemed scandalous by many, so he was eventually forced to show a little more restrain in his action and speeches. The current problem is that he's trying to reach the far right when the members of his party range from the center to the right. He's taking a big risk, and some members of the UMP have already left the movement because of this. This could greatly benefit to Bayrou, who's a center-right catholic politician with great ideas but little support. He's much more conservative, oddly enough, much closer to the traditional catholic right. On the other hand, Hollande is a member of the "gauche caviar", and not really a socialist. If anything, he belongs to the center left. In the end, the difference with Sarkozy isn't as strong as it looks like. Sarkozy progressive? In which word? He was never a real liberal and bonapartism isn't really near progressism in every way...
Progressive in the eyes of tradition. As a president, he was closer to the American model, close to the medias, at ease under their spotlights, showcasing his private life. Not only that, but he promised great changes in all senses, when a fringe of the UMP is clearly conservatist.
Now, wether he did implement his ideas is another thing. But he was elected for those.
|
On April 24 2012 05:06 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 04:33 SiroKO wrote: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. 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. 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.
Here's a study which completely debunks that claim: immigration actually has an incredibly positive net impact on the state's finances in France:
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article/2010/12/02/les-tres-bons-comptes-de-l-immigration
|
On April 25 2012 20:59 sAsImre wrote:
The surveys had a 3% precision where your 0.5% comes from? (samples are always around 1000ish)
First, if you have a 3 point precision you announce candidates like Cheminade at 3% not 0.5%... Because that would mean he could get a score of -2.5% which is absurd. A result of 0.5% means you have a precision of 0.5 points or better.
Then the 3% precision is totally made up and unscientific to say the least. Just look at the results announced at 8 o' clock : Le Pen was said to be at 20% while the official results were 18%. That's a 10% mistake and it's not a survey it's the actual counted votes ! If they can't achieve better than 10% accurate results I'm calling BS on the 3point precision surveys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
