[Jawbone54]

Sarkozy takes French Presidency

Wow. 85% of France showed up, and they picked the conservative?

Some of you who are a bit more "in the know" when it comes to French politics--can you tell me how this guy differs from American-style conservatives? And what was the deal with the lady getting beat? Is this an upset?

[BRussell]

Jeez. So we've got Orion, Buckaroo, and now Jawbone with the same thread: "France goes American!" Is there some conservative blog or news site you see and immediately post a thread without looking for the existence of other threads on the same topic? Here's a hint: This president is from the same party as the current president.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Here's a hint: This president is from the same party as the current president.

... like Lieberman and Kennedy.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... like Lieberman and Kennedy.

Except there are more than 2 parties in France, way more.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Sarkozy takes French Presidency

Wow. 85% of France showed up, and they picked the conservative?

Some of you who are a bit more "in the know" when it comes to French politics--can you tell me how this guy differs from American-style conservatives? And what was the deal with the lady getting beat? Is this an upset?

The definition of liberal, conservative, socialist, leftwing and rightwing changes all the time. You can only define them temporarily. For example, how the hell does Socialism belong on the Left when it is associated with herd mentality, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao? Or how come Christian fundamentalism is rife upon Republican Americans when a Republican founding father like Thomas Jefferson was almost atheist and wholly humanist? Or what are Islamists doing voting for the Left in France when Islamic theocracies are rightwing? Or how about George Galloway, who counted among his friends the leaders of Syria and Iraq and is an al-Qaeda apologist, is thought of as a leftwing radical while liberal atheist Christopher Hitchens is a centrist?

There are many complex reasons for these that are temporary and depend on human reactions to each other and also location, location, location.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Sarkozy takes French Presidency

Wow. 85% of France showed up, and they picked the conservative?

Some of you who are a bit more "in the know" when it comes to French politics--can you tell me how this guy differs from American-style conservatives? And what was the deal with the lady getting beat? Is this an upset?

How many threads do we need on this?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Except there are more than 2 parties in France, way more.

Yep:

Nicolas Sarkozy 11.448.663 31,18 % 18.983.408 53,06 %
Ségolène Royal 9.500.112 25,87 % 16.790.611 46,94 %
François Bayrou 6.820.119 18,57 %
Jean-Marie Le Pen 3.834.530 10,44 %
Olivier Besancenot 1.498.581 4,08 %
Philippe de Villiers 818.407 2,23 %
Marie-George Buffet 707.268 1,93 %
Dominique Voynet 576.666 1,57 %
Arlette Laguiller 487.857 1,33 %
José Bové 483.008 1,32 %
Frédéric Nihous 420.645 1,15 %
Gérard Schivardi 123.540 0,34 %

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yep:

Nicolas Sarkozy 11.448.663 31,18 % 18.983.408 53,06 %
Ségolène Royal 9.500.112 25,87 % 16.790.611 46,94 %
François Bayrou 6.820.119 18,57 %
Jean-Marie Le Pen 3.834.530 10,44 %
Olivier Besancenot 1.498.581 4,08 %
Philippe de Villiers 818.407 2,23 %
Marie-George Buffet 707.268 1,93 %
Dominique Voynet 576.666 1,57 %
Arlette Laguiller 487.857 1,33 %
José Bové 483.008 1,32 %
Frédéric Nihous 420.645 1,15 %
Gérard Schivardi 123.540 0,34 %

There are more parties in the American system too. Greens, Libertarian. Look at the percentages you were kind enough to provide. They comprise a significant minority of the constituency and they never get elected either. Much like the above, you're really either voting for somone in the Socialist Party (which doesn't do very well) or you're voting for someone in the Conservative Party. From the little reading I've done on the issue, it seems Sarkozy won on a reformation platform.

What is he reforming if he and Chirac see eye to eye?

[Sherman Homan]

They had an 85% turn out, that is amazing!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are more parties in the American system too. Greens, Libertarian. Look at the percentages you were kind enough to provide. They comprise a significant minority of the constituency and they never get elected either. Much like the above, you're really either voting for somone in the Socialist Party (which doesn't do very well) or you're voting for someone in the Conservative Party.

Well, there can only be one president, obviously.

Although you might note that fully one-third of the entire popular vote did NOT go to one of the two major parties.


The parliament looks slightly different:



Compare and contrast again with the United States, if you will.

[analogika]

BTW, what the hell is up with this thread title?

What the **** does "France" liking or disliking America(ns) have to do with this election?

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What is he reforming if he and Chirac see eye to eye?

They don't see eye to eye on many issues. For a start, Sarkozy has the balls to stand up to the nanny state that allowed immigrant poverty, gangs and youth unemployment to happen.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by analogika 

BTW, what the hell is up with this thread title?

What the **** does "France" liking or disliking America(ns) have to do with this election?

Voting "conservative" = "Pro-America", obviously. Because the conservative Chirac was obviously pro-America and all conservatives around the world like traditional, American, values.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Voting "conservative" = "Pro-America", obviously. Because the conservative Chirac was obviously pro-America and all conservatives around the world like traditional, American, values.

I hope that was sarcasm.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

They don't see eye to eye on many issues. For a start, Sarkozy has the balls to stand up to the Socialists and the nanny state they created which allowed immigrant poverty, gangs and youth unemployment to happen.

Although for now it is all talk. We'll see what he can/want to reform. The nanny state has its drawback, but is also has its qualities. Throwing everything out through the window would be a mistake. France surely does not want to become what the UK is now.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Although for now it is all talk. We'll see what he can/want to reform. The nanny state has its drawback, but is also has its qualities. Throwing everything out through the window would be a mistake. France surely does not want to become what the UK is now.

The UK's economy has been surging ahead for a dozen years.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Voting "conservative" = "Pro-America", obviously. Because the conservative Chirac was obviously pro-America and all conservatives around the world like traditional, American, values.

Hehehe...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

France's coffers are in debt to the tune of 17,000 Euros per person. They simple can't afford to have more immigration and welfare dependency. Royal wasn't going to change that or introduce any form of meritocracy. She was stupid enough in the last few days before the election to say she wanted to be the mother of every French person. The ultimate nanny.

The only way France can become fiscally responsible and dissolve the public debt is by reducing welfare dependency and increasing business by boasting the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism that the Socialists despise. Afterwards, when the economy recovers, they can increase social welfare again.

*ahem*

The last TWELVE YEARS, the French president was conservative.

(oh, and *pssst*: U.S. national debt was at $161,287 per person at the end of 2006. Just, you know, FYI.)

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

I hope that was sarcasm.

Note to Aron: Please see thread title.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by analogika 

*ahem*
The last TWELVE YEARS, the French president was conservative.

Chirac wasn't responsible for the nanny state mentality. That was laid down by Mitterrand. Chirac was too chicken hearted to change it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Where did the US come into this discussion anyway?

Just a guess, but it may have something to do with the title of the thread.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Just a guess, but it may have something to do with the title of the thread.

I'll rephrase. The US national debt has nothing to do with France's.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

I'll rephrase. The US national debt has nothing to do with France's.

You mean, sort of like how France's national vote resulting in another conservative government has nothing to do with them "liking America" or "the French coming to their senses"?

[Jawbone54]

Just returned for the first time to this thread. A few points...

1. I didn't see a thread title that talked about the French elections, and I didn't read through every single thread. I'm sorry if it's covering a topic that has already been addressed, but I've noticed a different tone in correcting the conservatives in this forum than there is for the lefties.

2. I've read countless articles during the past few weeks that label Sarkozy as "pro-American." He criticizes for our response to global warming, but has been described by Reuters as "a strong admirer of the United States." And if Sarkozy is so much like Chirac, then why does he talk about his "mandate for change?" Source for mandate article: here.

The point is that people are talking about Sarkozy in a much different light than they talked about Chirac.

From here...

Sarkozy, a pro-American conservative and an immigrant's son, defeated Socialist Segolene Royal by 53.06 percent to 46.94 percent with an 85 percent voter turnout, according to final results released early Monday.

The win gave Sarkozy a strong mandate for his vision of France's future: He wants to free up labor markets, calls France's 35-hour work week "absurd" and plans tougher measures on crime and immigration.

"The people of France have chosen change," Sarkozy told cheering supporters in a victory speech that sketched out a stronger global role for France and renewed partnership with the United States.

...

Sarkozy, 52, has drawn up a whirlwind agenda for his first 100 days in office and plans to put big reforms before parliament at an extraordinary session in July. One bill would make overtime pay tax-free to encourage people to work more. Another would put in place tougher sentencing for repeat offenders, and still another would toughen up the criteria for immigrants trying to bring their families to France.

...

He urged the United States to take the lead on climate change and said the issue would be a priority for France.

"A great nation, like the United States, has a duty not to block the battle against global warming but - on the contrary - to take the lead in this battle, because the fate of the whole of humanity is at stake," Sarkozy said.

Doesn't sound like Chirac to me.

[BRussell]

I don't know. How is he more pro-American? Chirac opposed the Iraq war, Sarko opposed the Iraq war. Chirac was on the US's case about global warming, so is Sarko.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't know. How is he more pro-American? Chirac opposed the Iraq war, Sarko opposed the Iraq war. Chirac was on the US's case about global warming, so is Sarko.

Everything begins with economics! Royal frankly had absurd and cliché views of the US just to get votes from stone throwing anarchists. She tried everything dirty tactic in the book to get votes.

[BRussell]

So it's not that he's more pro-American, it's that he has more American-like economic policies. Well, in the sense that Sarko is more conservative than Sego, and America is more conservative than France, maybe that's true. But that's quite a bit different from saying that his foreign policies are more pro-American, and it's vastly different from saying the French people, who used to hate America, have now decided that they love America, and in order to show their change of heart they elected this guy.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Where did the US come into this discussion anyway? Shouldn't you be posting about your friends, the petit scum, who were out lighting fires again last night because they'll have to stop selling drugs and think they're going to spread Islam across France, and get jobs instead?

Oh yeah! What was I thinking...?

And speaking of which, shouldn't you be posting about YOUR friends, the Grande Scum?

[Monique]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yep:

Nicolas Sarkozy 11.448.663 31,18 % 18.983.408 53,06 %
Ségolène Royal 9.500.112 25,87 % 16.790.611 46,94 %
François Bayrou 6.820.119 18,57 %
Jean-Marie Le Pen 3.834.530 10,44 %
Olivier Besancenot 1.498.581 4,08 %
Philippe de Villiers 818.407 2,23 %
Marie-George Buffet 707.268 1,93 %
Dominique Voynet 576.666 1,57 %
Arlette Laguiller 487.857 1,33 %
José Bové 483.008 1,32 %
Frédéric Nihous 420.645 1,15 %
Gérard Schivardi 123.540 0,34 %

You are mixing up the 2 rounds. On the second round Sarkozy got 53% and Royal 46%

The way you calculate things right now it gives more than 100%.

Anyway, the way Sarkozy is conservative is totally different from a conservative in the U.S.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't really give a flying **** if France is "pro-America" or not, but I have to say, they have their illegal immigration policy straight.

Hortefeux, who plans to travel soon to Spain and Africa to try to coordinate efforts to fight illegal immigration, also said he was in favour of a language test for newcomers to France.

“To be integrated, you need language skills and a professional activity,” he told RFI radio.

France is home to an estimated 1.5mn immigrants from mostly Muslim North Africa and 500,000 from sub-Saharan Africa out of a total immigrant population of around 5mn, according to the 2004 population census.

Hortefeux earlier this week said there would be no mass legalisation of illegals, as was done in neighbouring Spain, and that requests for legal status would be treated on a case-by-case basis.

He predicted there would be about 25,000 expulsions of illegals from France this year, which is roughly the number deported last year. He estimated the number of illegals in France at between 200,000 and 400,000.

'magine that... a country that actually protects its borders/language/culture. Imagine, rule of law being applied in a nation's best interests, not illegality encouraged to appease politically correct insanity. Now if only idiot American politicians in the pocket of cheating businesses could get even half a clue.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Monique 

You are mixing up the 2 rounds. On the second round Sarkozy got 53% and Royal 46%

The way you calculate things right now it gives more than 100%.

YOU are mixing them up.

Take another look at my post, Monique.

Now imagine it in table form (which it originally was).

There were twelve candidates in the first round, where

Nicolas Sarkozy got 11.448.663 votes, or 31,18 %. In the second round, he got 18.983.408 votes, or 53,06 %.
Ségolène Royal, first round: 9.500.112 votes, 25,87 %. Second round, 16.790.611, 46,94 %

I was merely pointing out that there were, in fact, 12 candidates who received votes, and that the two finalists only received 56% of the vote first time around.

Roughly one-third of the voters actually wanted Sarkozy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

The definition of liberal, conservative, socialist, leftwing and rightwing changes all the time. You can only define them temporarily. For example, how the hell does Socialism belong on the Left when it is associated with herd mentality, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao?

The left = hive mentality.
Socialism = hive mentality.

And this is the problem with most of you folks who class yourselves as "left" - you don't actually know what it is that you're supporting. That is; social control, authoritarianism and a hive mind. You'd be better off being libertarian, as this would prolly fit your views better.

Socialism is a social disease, much like syphilis. You can only get it off being in contact with someone who already has it.

[monkeybrain]

You're mixing things up again Doofy. You can't say that a leftist should consider calling himself a libertarian, a libertarian is on the left, socialism is just further along. The left broadly supports liberty of the individual. America is entirely on the left, the left-right spectrum of America is a subdivision of a larger leftist division. Again, this shows, as Aron was saying, that such use of left, right etc. are practically useless if you're trying to talk about anything international. They're just used in this very simplistic and weighted fashion now.

Also if socialism is hive/herd (insert your favourite pejorative collective noun here) then in what way is the combination of democracy and capitalism not? Democracy relies on percentages for people to gain power, why can't you define a large percentage of people supporting one thing as a herd? The same is true of capitalism, which relies so much on prevailing fashions trends. The same arguments can of course also be made about organised religions. Surely this indicates that a herd mentality is inherent to human nature, it's just that it is more conspicuous under certain systems and situations.

Also, what is wrong with social control? This is what religion is for after all (if you view it at the macro level). These terms shouldn't be bandied about as if they are somehow 'evil' and unique to a particular system.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain 

You're mixing things up again Doofy. You can't say that a leftist should consider calling himself a libertarian, a libertarian is on the left, socialism is just further along. The left broadly supports liberty of the individual.

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. Like all lefties.

Here's your line:

communism -------------- centre -------------- libertarianism.


In no way does the left support liberty of the individual.
Are the Dems going to let you buy AK47s if you want to? No? Then that's not individual liberty. Period.

[Graviton]

[Doofy]

And that political compass doesn't exist in real life, Graviton.
In fact, the green quadrant can't exist. It isn't marked there, but as we all know the left/right axis on that has to do with financial freedom. Let's observe a society stuck in the libertarian left area:

Everything's running along smoothly, it's socialist utopia. Now, one bloke suddenly decides he'd quite like a Ferrari. There's two options. One; the society lets him earn enough to buy the Ferrari - which would see the whole society immediately transpose to the libertarian right. Two; the society doesn't let him, in which case the whole thing jumps over to the authoritarian left.

Tilt that graphic 45 degrees counter-clockwise and you get the real left/right line. More like this:

[Graviton]

In a world where everybody is born equally wealthy, is equally well educated, is equally mentally stable, equally physically able and are given equal opportunities, then they can afford to buy a Ferrari. This world unfortunately is not the planet earth.

I don't believe in a socialist utopia or a capitalist utopia, neither systems are without flaws, but one can still fight for social justice whilst supporting personal freedom and liberty.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

one can still fight for social justice whilst supporting personal freedom and liberty.

No. The two are mutually exclusive. "Social justice" will always entail some form of oppression towards those who're naturally better equipped.

[Graviton]

You say "naturally better equipped" I say "born into privilege".

Here in the west a significant amount of us are born into privilege and a lot of people in other parts of the world are born into our servitude, spending every waking hour in sweatshops and on near-slavery farms, fuelling our utopian free market dream just so that we can have the opportunity to buy nice shiny stuff with logos on the side while they struggle to feed their families and have no opportunity to escape.

So, I support social justice and an evening of the score, both within my country and globally. I also support the right to free speech and equal opportunities for all, both within my country and globally.

If you don't agree with that, or think that this is not at all possible, then we will have to politely leave it there.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

So, I support social justice and an evening of the score, both within my country and globally.

And how do you expect to do that, without doing a Robin Hood and forcing me to give *my* money to them through punitive tax legislation?

[Graviton]

Well, I think Robin Hood sounds like a cool guy. Sorry.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Tilt that graphic 45 degrees counter-clockwise and you get the real left/right line. More like this:

I have no idea which planet you live on, but it ain't in this universe.

No wonder Nazis qualify as "left" in your bizarre world.

[red rocket]

Political Compass Questionnaire





(The red dot is me.)

Maybe more people here should take the test.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

I have no idea which planet you live on, but it ain't in this universe.

No wonder Nazis qualify as "left" in your bizarre world.

Educate yourself.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Well, I think Robin Hood sounds like a cool guy. Sorry.

Sounds like a thug to me.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Educate yourself.

That letter is pure anti-semetism. What has that to do with being "left"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

That letter is pure anti-semetism. What has that to do with being "left"?

Why is it anti-semite?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Maybe more people here should take the test.

I'm to the right of Nelson Mandela.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

... those who're naturally better equipped.

You mean like her?



Is it just me or is she a tad lean on her left breast?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Here in the west a significant amount of us are born into privilege and a lot of people in other parts of the world are born into our servitude, spending every waking hour in sweatshops and on near-slavery farms, fuelling our utopian free market dream just so that we can have the opportunity to buy nice shiny stuff with logos on the side while they struggle to feed their families and have no opportunity to escape.

It sounds like you're saying people in the West are wealthy because people in other parts of the world are poor. It's our system of government bub. It works better than those "other places". That's why the US (and please don't show me charts of government aid to other countries. The lions-share of giving from the US is done at the individual and corporate level, not at the government level.) gives an exponentially higher amount of money in aid and provisions to those other places than the rest of the world. If they didn't have those 'near-slave' conditions to work under (which is deplorable), they'd have absolutely nothing. (which is death)

So, I support social justice and an evening of the score, both within my country and globally. I also support the right to free speech and equal opportunities for all, both within my country and globally.

So... you're on board for a little regime change in those places?