French Presidential Elections

[Give me Beer]

The second round of the elections is coming up, Ségo vs. Sarko. Haven't seen a thread on it on here, so I thought I'd make one.

Eh bien, Ségo is a dumb bitch with no ideas, but the alternative is Sarko, our favourite Neo-Liberal Racist. I fear that he just might win too. France might have some problems (35-hour week, slightly too strict labour laws) but Sarkozy's approach is just not what it needs. This election is going to be very important in determining the road the EU is going to take the next few years I think.

Aussi, if Sarko wins, the banlieues are not going to be a nice place to be. It's going to explode more likely than not. Remember those riots of november 2005?

Après les bleus de Santini, experts en football
v’la les bleus de Sarkozy, nouveaux experts en flashball
Et voici la Gaule, nous résistants de demain, les rôles s’inversent
Nous pour Astérix et eux pour les Romains

[Smokey D]

It will be very interesting to see what direction the EU takes if Sarkozy, Merkel, and Cameron are all in office at the same time (though I spose Blairism isn't that different to other forms of neo-liberalism.)

I pretty much agree with you. France has some pretty dire problems at the moment, but Sarkozy seems to want to do too much too fast, which can't help but cause even worse issues in the future. Coupled with his blatant racism and the mutual hatred that exists between him and the banlieues, his election could be pretty bad.

I also think it's inevitable, however.

[Light Fantastic]

Sarkozy is probably better for the economic problems, Ségolène for the social. France has done well with socialist economic policy in the past... but I don't think Ségolène is up to the job.

Hard to tell who will win. Sarkozy seems to be edging into the lead right now. But then you have the centrists that supported Bayrou who could go either way, perhaps more towards Royal. The far-right voters who may or may not give their vote to Sarkozy.

Bayrou should still be in, he's the best candidate by far. Now I'd vote Ségolène just to avoid having Sarkozy though.

[peeted]

Ségolène is the way to go, Sarkozy hates half the people in his country. Trouble is the potential young voters in France have been put of politics so much by right wing buffoons that they aren't going to vote and Sarkozy will probably get in.

[Smokey D]

The far-right (supporters of LePen, that is) would be likely to give their vote to Sarkozy since they share a similar position on immigration and the banlieues.

[Give me Beer]

Hmm, makes me wonder, why is it that elections always seem to turn into choosing the least of the two evils?

Also, I don't trust politicians that actually have a hand running the popular media (like Berlusconi and Sarkozy). Seems to me, that ought to be banned.

[Surgicalgod]

Hmm, makes me wonder, why is it that elections always seem to turn into choosing the least of the two evils?


This. Royal isn't up for the job and Sarkozy shouldn't get it.
I'd vote Royal, but Sarkozy is going to win.

[Smokey D]

I think it is in a lot of countries. It's pretty terrible, especially when (like Berlusconi) when it is the majority of the nation's media that is controlled.

[Give me Beer]

Seems to me to point towards something deeper. I get this feeling that the (western) representative parliamentary democracy is nearing a crisis moment bigger than anything since the 1930s. The system just isn't working properly anymore (if it ever did) and every year it gets more obvious. The media and international conglomerates have national politics in a stranglehold that's making more and more people turn away from it. The problem is that there is no real alternative. This election just highlights it pretty well.

[Smokey D]

I don't think there is a crisis as any bad as that, and I certainly don't see a viable alternative.

The problem for democracy lies in expanding it into new countries with no tradition of the rule of law. Established democracies are much more likely to endure.

[Give me Beer]

I didn't say that we're already at the crisis moment, I said we're nearing it. There just isn't any alternative. Everybody wants to be in the center, but nobody really knows what they want to do there. There's no clear cut debate. Elections are more about personality than actual substance. Worst of all, the politicians really do not have that much power anymore. The economic policy has turned into "please the multinationals as much as necessary" which in turn leads them to exploit this and play countries off against eachother. The biggest powers in this world aren't national governments but (hierarchical, and definitely not democratic) companies. Do you trust them? Our democracy is little more than a scam and I think people are starting to realize this.

[Smokey D]

I don't necessarily see a problem with appealing to the centre if that's where the public wants to be. And I don't necessarily agree that politicians don't know what to do when they've reached the centre, either.

I'm not sure multinationals have become more powerful than entrenched, democratic governments. They certainly wield a lot of power in many countries, but where they're most dangerous is in developing or limited democracy countries. I think the military-industrial complex and the power of multi-nationals is grossly inflated in the public imagination.

For example, I don't think multinationals have influenced the election in France in any serious way.

[lfantwister]

I don't necessarily see a problem with appealing to the centre if that's where the public wants to be. And I don't necessarily agree that politicians don't know what to do when they've reached the centre, either.
Of course politicians will appeal to the center; the public defines where the center is. They try to make their opposition look extremist and wild and crazy while looking rational and moderate.

[Smokey D]

I don't know. That seems to be a fairly recent political development if you think about it, especially in Europe.

[gregulus]

I don't know. That seems to be a fairly recent political development if you think about it, especially in Europe.

This is a true statement. Politicial elections have changed drastically in the last half century or so.

[Smokey D]

I'd argue since about 1985 or so. When class differences stopped being the main influences on voting behavior and parties that were traditionally 'left' and 'right' started moving in on each other's territory (ie, New Labour in Britain and the neo-conservatives in the US)

[deathscreamingsheep]

and Cameron are all in office at the same time

I never really had Cameron down as a neo-liberal. Then again, I never really had him down as anything at all apart from that he bangs on about the NHS and the environment 24/7 without one hint of a sense of what direction his policy towards them actually is.

But anyway, that's besides the point. I'm also wondering about how the EU will change with these in power. Actually, I'll be honest it probably won't change much internally, just with more limits on various eastern european countries and harsher standards for joining.

Anyway, back to France. The presence of the right over there worries me a little, not for their economic policies at all, just purely the social ideas that are being advocated. We've had more than enough tension over there as it is and this sort of government is hardly what we need.

[Give me Beer]

Grossly inflated? I think most people don't even think about the power multinational corporations actually have. I'm pretty sure they still influenced the elections by the way, since people without money for campaigns can't really run, can they? Ségo is far more liberal than you think.

[Smokey D]

That's easily rectifiable by placing limits on contributions. The public generally have far more of an impact on governments than multinationals. Well, they have an impact on who gets into government, at least. Even Bush was elected on a values, not economic, platform.

[lfantwister]

That's easily rectifiable by placing limits on contributions. The public generally have far more of an impact on governments than multinationals.
Wouldn't placing limits be in effect a limitation on free speech? We've all heard it but it's true--money talks, and in most cases more effectively than words. Contributing money to a campaign is more effective than talking about why the candidate's so good, and it's an extrapolation of free speech.

[Smokey D]

You're not preventing anyone from endorsing candidates, so no.

[lfantwister]

But you're limiting peoples' ability to endorse candidates to the extent they might want to

[Iscariot]

i think jon stewart said it best when he said, "who cares"

[Chrysostom]

I don't like either candidate. Sego is a Blairite and Sarko is a racist.

[Give me Beer]

i think jon stewart said it best when he said, "who cares"

Seeing as it is rather important, I do.

If Sarkozy gets elected I wouldn't be suprised if the rioting starts again, and if it starts again ... well ... when it rains in Paris it drizzles in Brussels.

[Smokey D]

But you're limiting peoples' ability to endorse candidates to the extent they might want to

No you're not. You're limiting how they go about that endorsement. We stop people from endorsing candidates through use of force or fraud. This isn't that different. It has never been the case that limiting anti-democratic practises limits democracy.

I don't like either candidate. Sego is a Blairite and Sarko is a racist.

Sego is pretty left of Blair. New Labour is roughly equivilant to the French centre right, but with less racism.

[pedro durruti]

I think that not putting a limit on campaign contributions is an infringement of free speech because candidates with the best funded campaigns will stifle other candidates' voices, by shouting too loudly and making money one of the main determinants of the election.

[Reaganista]

Seeing as it is rather important
to what

[Give me Beer]

to what

The direction Europe will take, the direction France will take (which has always had an impact on Belgium) ... because Sarkozy winning will drive immigrant tensions to a boiling point if you ask me. I can definitely see street clashes happening sunday.

[Smokey D]

Economic reform in France is central to the long-term importance in world affairs of Europe in general, I feel.

[Hababi]

Seeing as it is rather important, I do.

If Sarkozy gets elected I wouldn't be suprised if the rioting starts again, and if it starts again ... well ... when it rains in Paris it drizzles in Brussels.

Who will be rioting?

I would much prefer for Sarkozy to be elected; I think he's better for France, economically, and for the globe.

I'm actually watching their debate from Wednesday, on CSPAN. So much better than the pallid, stale American ones.


I pretty much agree with you. France has some pretty dire problems at the moment, but Sarkozy seems to want to do too much too fast, which can't help but cause even worse issues in the future. Coupled with his blatant racism and the mutual hatred that exists between him and the banlieues, his election could be pretty bad.


Don't forget Poland's president, too. Conservatism will rise again in Europe :D

[lunchforthesky]

Who will be rioting?

I would much prefer for Sarkozy to be elected; I think he's better for France, economically, and for the globe.

I'm actually watching their debate from Wednesday, on CSPAN. So much better than the pallid, stale American ones.



Don't forget Poland's president, too. Conservatism will rise again in Europe :D

The poor working class and often ethinic groups who live in the suburbs of the big cities.

[Hababi]

The poor working class and often ethinic groups who live in the suburbs of the big cities.

The same idiots who rioted last year? :\

[lunchforthesky]

The same idiots who rioted last year? :\

it makes you an idiot to riot when your government doesnt give a **** about you?

were those who stormed the bastille idiots?

[Hababi]

it makes you an idiot to riot when your government doesnt give a **** about you?

were those who stormed the bastille idiots?

You honestly mean to compare the outgoing French government with an arrogant Monarchy?

It makes you an idiot when you riot in general. Sam Adams and co. were idiots when they rioted in the Boston Tea Party. And the illiterate jobless were idiots when they burned cars and assaulted innocent people, absolutely.

The problem with a welfare state in the model of France is that it creates a dependent mentality. Instead of working their way up, they expect things to be handed to them. France's disastrous economic and job policies don't help things either, which is all the more reason why Sarkozy is needed.

[lunchforthesky]

You honestly mean to compare the outgoing French government with an arrogant Monarchy?

It makes you an idiot when you riot in general. Sam Adams and co. were idiots when they rioted in the Boston Tea Party. And the illiterate jobless were idiots when they burned cars and assaulted innocent people, absolutely.

The problem with a welfare state in the model of France is that it creates a dependent mentality. Instead of working their way up, they expect things to be handed to them. France's disastrous economic and job policies don't help things either, which is all the more reason why Sarkozy is needed.

And self help just makes more and more people incredibly poor and poverty stricken. If people are surrendering their freedom to the state they expect something back.

[Hababi]

And self help just makes more and more people incredibly poor and poverty stricken. If people are surrendering their freedom to the state they expect something back.

Yes, they get back roads, police, national defense, etc.

And a stable, sensible economic policy that allows for prosperity and freedom. France's labor laws don't permit this.

If self help is so bad, then why are Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea etc. wealthy nations? Their systems encourage self help, and their economic laws permit it to work.

[lunchforthesky]

Yes, they get back roads, police, national defense, etc.

And a stable, sensible economic policy that allows for prosperity and freedom. France's labor laws don't permit this.

If self help is so bad, then why are Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea etc. wealthy nations? Their systems encourage self help, and their economic laws permit it to work.

They still have a huge rich poor divide which is unaaceptable.

Converse to those succeses you have the US which promotes self help and has a ridiculously large urban poor who are not really given the capacity to achieve all they can, which would be the aim of the self help mentality.

[Hababi]

They still have a huge rich poor divide which is unaaceptable.

Huge? That's quite an exaggeration. There exists truely huge divides in some countries, but none of those are amongst them:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_equ_un_ric_10_to_poo_10-equality-un-richest-10-poorest

The divide is greater than some other countries, but so what?

Furthermore, France's richest 10% controls much more than South Korea's:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_dis_ric_10-economy-income-distribution-richest-10

There will always exist a divide between rich and poor because there exists a disparity in skills and drive. Greater income equalities are artificial and harmful.


Converse to those succeses you have the US which promotes self help and has a ridiculously large urban poor who are not really given the capacity to achieve all they can, which would be the aim of the self help mentality.

Dude, I live in the United States, in a poor area, and you're off base. An at risk teen (meaning a poor teen) can enroll in Job Corps, which pays well above minimum wage and pays for them to complete an associates degree in a technical field which will allow them to rise out of poverty. That's if they're not smart enough to get into a four year college and get much if not all of their education paid for.

Most of the time, people who fail in America fail on their own accord. If you want to succeed in America, you can. You won't necessarily get rich, but you'll better yourself. And have the dignity of having done so yourself. But you have to accept that some people are too dumb and lazy to better themselves. They shouldn't be rewarded for their sloth and inadequacies.

[lunchforthesky]

Huge? That's quite an exaggeration. There exists truely huge divides in some countries, but none of those are amongst them:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_equ_un_ric_10_to_poo_10-equality-un-richest-10-poorest

The divide is greater than some other countries, but so what?

Furthermore, France's richest 10% controls much more than South Korea's:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inc_dis_ric_10-economy-income-distribution-richest-10

There will always exist a divide between rich and poor because there exists a disparity in skills and drive. Greater income equalities are artificial and harmful.



Dude, I live in the United States, in a poor area, and you're off base. An at risk teen (meaning a poor teen) can enroll in Job Corps, which pays well above minimum wage and pays for them to complete an associates degree in a technical field which will allow them to rise out of poverty. That's if they're not smart enough to get into a four year college and get much if not all of their education paid for.

Most of the time, people who fail in America fail on their own accord. If you want to succeed in America, you can. You won't necessarily get rich, but you'll better yourself. And have the dignity of having done so yourself. But you have to accept that some people are too dumb and lazy to better themselves. They shouldn't be rewarded for their sloth and inadequacies.

But the system should be based on ability not birth right and that is not the case.

[Hababi]

But the system should be based on ability not birth right and that is not the case.

Part of the drive to succeed, for most people, is to be able to give your child a better chance at life. It's unrealistic to expect every child to have the same quality education, same access to materials, etc. some people have to work harder than others, just as some must work harder than others to maintain a healthy weight. But for every Paris Hilton, there are 1000 people who worked hard and deserve where they're at.

[lunchforthesky]

Part of the drive to succeed, for most people, is to be able to give your child a better chance at life. It's unrealistic to expect every child to have the same quality education, same access to materials, etc. some people have to work harder than others, just as some must work harder than others to maintain a healthy weight. But for every Paris Hilton, there are 1000 people who worked hard and deserve where they're at.

I realise that there can never be true equality or at least it is unlikely but i dont think we have yet reached the peak, in fact far from it.

Plus why does the stockbroker who manipulates money deserve 50 times the wage of the bin man?

[lfantwister]

Plus why does the stockbroker who manipulates money deserve 50 times the wage of the bin man?
Because that's how we as a society value work; intellectual > physical labor, always

[lunchforthesky]

Because that's how we as a society value work; intellectual > physical labor, always

i know that is how OUR society works, but surely those who contribute more to the collective benifit should be better rewarded?

[lfantwister]

i know that is how OUR society works, but surely those who contribute more to the collective benifit should be better rewarded?
according to whom though? oh right, society

[Smokey D]

I think you don't understand the role of stockbrokers, lunch.

They probably provide at least 50 times the benefit for society than bin men.

The most undervalued and underpaid professions are nursing and teaching. Everything else is pretty close in terms of people qualified to do it: benefit to society ratio.

The poor working class and often ethinic groups who live in the suburbs of the big cities

Lots of students as well, but for different reasons.

were those who stormed the bastille idiots?

That's like the worst comparison you can make. The French Revolution was a disaster.

[Give me Beer]

The problem with a welfare state in the model of France is that it creates a dependent mentality. Instead of working their way up, they expect things to be handed to them. France's disastrous economic and job policies don't help things either, which is all the more reason why Sarkozy is needed.

Don't tell me you're confusing the riots in the banlieues with the weeks of protests the students held months later. The banlieues were rioting for completley different reasons. They're going to riot because Sarkozy called them "racaille" (scum more or less) and said he would clean up the banlieues with a high pressure hose. Now during the campaign he has said things like "The only thing I'm sorry about is that racaille is far too soft of a term".

By the way, nationmaster statistics are worth jack ****. I saw a statistic on that site that claimed that the US and France had more poor than India and China. :rolleyes:

[Smokey D]

Do we know who won the election yet?

[lunchforthesky]

That's like the worst comparison you can make. The French Revolution was a disaster.

It was but it was still better than under the Bourbon Dynasty and was the trigger for liberal democracy is Europe.

EDIT: We find out late tonight.

[Smokey D]

I also think it's pretty stupid to compare overthrowing an autocratic failing government with ineffectual riots in the banlieues.

[lunchforthesky]

I also think it's pretty stupid to compare overthrowing an autocratic failing government with ineffectual riots in the banlieues.

I didn't compare the events, Zero said that all rioting was stupid. So i gave an example of where it was not.

[Smokey D]

What? No he didn't. He said the rioters last year were stupid.

And there's a big difference between rioting and self-conscious revolution.

[lunchforthesky]

What? No he didn't. He said the rioters last year were stupid.

And there's a big difference between rioting and self-conscious revolution.

yes he did.


It makes you an idiot when you riot in general. Sam Adams and co. were idiots when they rioted in the Boston Tea Party. And the illiterate jobless were idiots when they burned cars and assaulted innocent people, absolutely.

[Smokey D]

Alright. He did, but he did so after you made that comment on the Bastille.

It was still a pretty retarded comment.

[lunchforthesky]

No he made it before i made the comment about the Bastille.

[Smokey D]

were those who raided the Bastille idiots


It makes you an idiot when you riot in general. Sam Adams and co. were idiots when they rioted in the Boston Tea Party. And the illiterate jobless were idiots when they burned cars and assaulted innocent people, absolutely.

Unless you ninja edited or something.

[lunchforthesky]

Unless you ninja edited or something.

aah my mistake.

[Hababi]

Don't tell me you're confusing the riots in the banlieues with the weeks of protests the students held months later. The banlieues were rioting for completley different reasons. They're going to riot because Sarkozy called them "racaille" (scum more or less) and said he would clean up the banlieues with a high pressure hose. Now during the campaign he has said things like "The only thing I'm sorry about is that racaille is far too soft of a term".

Oh that was Sarkozy, I remember that now. But let's be realistic: if people are mercurial enough to riot whenever a medium-level politician says something about them, I think keeping them sane isn't a high concern. I don't see how that should take precedence over economic and job law reform, which Sarkozy will hopefully bring.


By the way, nationmaster statistics are worth jack ****. I saw a statistic on that site that claimed that the US and France had more poor than India and China. :rolleyes:

Well part of that is dealing with whether countries are going to be honest or not. China obviously isn't. But if you're dealing with democratic 1st world countries, you're more likely getting a relatively accurate perspective of statistics.

[Give me Beer]

Oh that was Sarkozy, I remember that now. But let's be realistic: if people are mercurial enough to riot whenever a medium-level politician says something about them, I think keeping them sane isn't a high concern. I don't see how that should take precedence over economic and job law reform, which Sarkozy will hopefully bring.


Uhm, "medium-level politician"? Dude, Sarkozy was the minister of interior affairs and that means the HEAD OF THE POLICE AS WELL.

[Give me Beer]

Well, the results are in. Sarkozy 53% vs Royal 47%.

Oh ****.

[lunchforthesky]

aah sucks.

[Hababi]

Well, the results are in. Sarkozy 53% vs Royal 47%.

Oh ****.

YES!!!!!!! :D

[Iskandar]

NO!!!!!!!

[Hababi]

NO!!!!!!!

:lol:

Come on, at least now maybe they can work toward ending that insane 30 hour work week law.

[Iskandar]

:lol:

Come on, at least now maybe they can work toward ending that insane 30 hour work week law.I must admit that I haven't been following this election closely, so I don't know about work week laws. All I know is that, in the words of Coheneran, "I hate Sarkozy".

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Royal is a socialist who hates violence on tv

She's like the French Hillary Clinton

[Iskandar]

Royal is a socialist who hates violence on tv

She's like the French Hillary ClintonHilary Clinton is not even remotely a socialist. She's Hilary Clinton.

Royal is the lesser of two soft options.

[pedro durruti]

YES!!!!!!! :D
Shouldn't you be boycotting France?

[Give me Beer]

YES!!!!!!! :D

Gracious as ever.

Furthermore it's the 35-hour week and Sarkozy was the interior minister for 5 years already. His party has been in the driving seat for, oh, what, 12 years already? Not that I am for the rule, I hate Sarkozy for completely different reasons.

I didn't like Royal either, let that be clear, just less than motherf'ckin' Sarkozy. By the way, did you see his acceptance speech? He sounded more socialist and green than ever before :lol: Also laughed at his "friends let other friends have differing opinions. I remember you have some difficulty with that. ;)

[Smokey D]

Like I said, I think Sarkozy has better economics ideas for France, but any benefits he might put in place there could easily be offset by social tensions regarding his attitudes to the banlieues.

[spitfirejunky]

I don't know why but I find his slogan "I will be president of all the French," slightly disturbing.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Hilary Clinton is not even remotely a socialist. She's Hilary Clinton.

She's socialist-lite

Hell, she's socialist-Zima

[Give me Beer]

So, told you there would be riots.

So far, 730 cars gone up in flames and 592 arrests, 78 cops got injured. This number is going to go up tonight, trust me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QM5vKkZP4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mMTUbWzkR8

[Iskandar]

She's socialist-lite

Hell, she's socialist-ZimaI must admit I fail to see how. Whatever.

[Hababi]

So, told you there would be riots.

So far, 730 cars gone up in flames and 592 arrests, 78 cops got injured. This number is going to go up tonight, trust me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QM5vKkZP4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mMTUbWzkR8

That's just the people who Sarkozy called scum proving him correct.

[Smokey D]

Well, it wasn't just the banlieues.

But we have to think would they have rioted if he didn't call them scum in the first place.

I don't know why but I find his slogan "I will be president of all the French," slightly disturbing.

His slogan was 'together'. The president of all France was part of his victory speech. The thing is, France really needs to be united. He is right in that he needs to be the president of everyone, not just those who elected him. I don't think he's going to be successful in this. I suspect cohabitation is going to come at the next parliamentary election.