Élection présidentielle en France

Be curious if anyone can answer, from either Burkina Faso or East Timor perspective.

Quote:

---

France election: Hollande takes lead into second round

French President Nicolas Sarkozy faces an uphill struggle in the second round of the presidential election, after coming second in Sunday's first vote.

He won only 27.1% of the vote, while his socialist rival Francois Hollande took 28.6%, the first time a sitting president has lost in first round.

Third-place Marine Le Pen took the largest share of the vote her far-right National Front has ever won with 18.1%.

The two men will face each other in a second round of voting on 6 May.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17809952

So yesterday was not that surprising at least not in the main outcome. Hollande ahead of Sarkozy by 1.3% of the voters. The polls see him ahead in the second round as well.
Surprising were the high turnout (over 80%) and the 18.1% for Le Pen. It seems the Front National is establishing itself despite being something like a one family party.

Agreed, this is really interesting. The outcome wasn't surprising, yet I'm still finding myself surprised.

It's also disappointing because each candidate seems to be making promises which are destined to hurt France's credit rating even further. The campaign platforms seem to be full of nonsense.

Most European news I read predict - indeed - a hard landing on the surface of reality for either candidate if he wins.

Oh hey they have elections in foreign as well. How quaint.

I still find it odd how the "right wing" parties in Western Europe all espouse hard-left economics.

Really? Nationalism and hating on the 'invading hordes' works well with protecting the small working class family. Que 'they took our jobs'. And I'd like to point out that most rightwing parties here are mostly very populist, which would probably be a better term to describe them. And populism goes against anything that might upset your middle class working base, which leads to more leftist economics.

Which of course sucks for them when they actually get power and can't just say populist measures that would not actually work. And then you may have to let the cabinet fall, as Wilders did, because he doesn't have the political guts to do things in the interest of the country (his quote: "I don't give a damn about the national interest, I care about my voters").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I still find it odd how the "right wing" parties in Western Europe all espouse hard-left economics.

---

Well, to turn that around, some of our people here view even your "left" democrats as one step away from Nazis. So what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I still find it odd how the "right wing" parties in Western Europe all espouse hard-left economics.

---

The SVP doesn't, not at all. And it is probably the most successful right wing party of Europe. I am not so sure about the FPÖ either, as they usually form a coalition with the conservatives.

Really? Which ones? Cause over here the 'left' loves calling Republicans that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Well, to turn that around, some of our people here view even your "left" democrats as one step away from Nazis. So what?

---

Only a moron I'm sure. Can't think of anyone in the forum that thick, care to name such a person?

As far as the French election, I'm really torn in a "why can't they both lose" kind of way. On the one hand I dislike Sarkozy (I had high hopes for him when elected after always disliking Chirac, but he hasn't lived upto my hopes). On the other hand while Sarkozy is the frying pan, Hollande is a raging inferno. I want Sarkozy to lose, but I truly desperately don't want Hollande to win. Can't square that peg, but at least Pen is out :up:

The French need a wake-up call with reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Really? Nationalism and hating on the 'invading hordes' works well with protecting the small working class family. Que 'they took our jobs'. And I'd like to point out that most rightwing parties here are mostly very populist, which would probably be a better term to describe them. And populism goes against anything that might upset your middle class working base, which leads to more leftist economics.

Which of course sucks for them when they actually get power and can't just say populist measures that would not actually work. And then you may have to let the cabinet fall, as Wilders did, because he doesn't have the political guts to do things in the interest of the country (his quote: "I don't give a damn about the national interest, I care about my voters").

---

Indeed, they do fall hard. My concern with France is that no major part of their political dynamic is remotely saying what I think needs to be said.

This is a country where 20% of the population supports a free market (compared to about 50% in most Western countries). There is no constituency for classical liberalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

This is a country where 20% of the population supports a free market (compared to about 50% in most Western countries). There is no constituency for classical liberalism.

---

Should we bring them freedom and democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coinich

Should we bring them freedom and democracy?

---

What, it's not democracy if they disagree with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coinich

Should we bring them freedom and democracy?

---

Maybe. Do they have oil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coinich

Should we bring them freedom and democracy?

---

They have the freedom (and demos) to f**k things up as much as they like. The shame is they'd be happy to fail if they take us down with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

What, it's not democracy if they disagree with you?

---

As Roosevelt once said, we need to teach them to elect good men. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The shame is they'd be happy to fail if they take us down with them.

---

I am sure you manage to do that all by yourself very well :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

As Roosevelt once said, we need to teach them to elect good men. :o

---

psst, wrong President

Damn it. Wilson. Close enough. :p

Different spin based upon the one quoted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Well, to turn that around, some of our people here view even your "left" democrats as one step away from Nazis. So what?

---

Why quibble? The American left and the European right are both little better than Nazis.

This keeps getting juicy...

First news see Hallande up to 6% in front.

Looking good for him so far. Fascinating to watch them dig deeper.

Well Hollande it is.

And the intarwebs are abuzz with prognostications! We're already being told to watch how "the markets" will react tomorrow, and how it will impact our 401-Ks and retirement plans, values of USD and currency exchange rates. Hard to believe that not too long ago, economists were sure that decoupling of global markets and national economies was complete. :hmm:

What? :bored: I don't know of any economists who said that. :bored: Do you just make shit up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

What? :bored: I don't know of any economists who said that. :bored: Do you just make shit up?

---

No way your memory can be worse than mine. We had a thread a few years ago that explored decoupling by sector, industry, nation, and currency. It was after the dotcom bubble burst, during the lead-up to the housing bubble and monetization of debt. Contagion was downplayed by economists like Greenspan and others. Sub-prime was seen as a localized problem that wasn't connected to any Domino Effect. Europe or the US having a cold wouldn't mean everyone else got the flu. Recessions were thought to be temporary 'business cycles' that could be contained, decoupled from other economies. Sovereign debt crises in other nations weren't considered as any real risk to the US, because we had our ducks in a row---and had control of the world's reserve currency.

Granted, the last couple of decades meant you were still in diapers at some time, then burying your nose in books. But that doesn't give you license to accuse me of making "shit" up, just because you don't remember it, or haven't studied it yet. :donkey: Hazir could likely recall those D & D posts about the decoupling myth, but he's not around much these days. Can't say I blame him, with the type of posts you make, Loki. :sour:

People (especially people who dislike the US for one reason or another) have been eagerly talking about "decoupling" for decades. In a world where nations trade, it's always been a pretty junk theory.

I don't imagine things are going to start falling apart overnight. He's a socialist, not a devil. But the slow-motion decay will perhaps speed up a tiny bit.

Sarkozy promised "rupture" and could not deliver. Hollande, in his own way, promises a strengthened status quo. Given the past few years, I don't that's a good direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

No way your memory can be worse than mine.

---

Well, to be fair, Loki's memory only applies to things that have really happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Well, to be fair, Loki's memory only applies to things that have really happened.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

People (especially people who dislike the US for one reason or another) have been eagerly talking about "decoupling" for decades. In a world where nations trade, it's always been a pretty junk theory.

---

But some people also thought globalization and financial modernization would stabilize their economies. That kind of "decoupling" would mean they had a buffer or insulation from problems in other countries. Then Iceland happened. The other type of "decoupling" was meant for fragile or emerging economies. As they grew and diversified, they'd theoretically be less dependent on imports, and volatility in commodities wouldn't throw them into crisis. Then the global food crisis happened.

Stabilization and decoupling are two totally different things. :bored: Being less dependent on imports has nothing to do with being affected global economic crises. :bored: Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are twisting the definitions of words that have pretty clear definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Stabilization and decoupling are two totally different things. :bored: Being less dependent on imports has less to do with being affected global economic crises. :bored: Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are twisting the definitions of words that have pretty clear definitions.

---

I recall older threads better than you do, apparently. :donkey: We discussed "decoupling" in broad terms for economic, fiscal and monetary policies, and when a "contagion" could hypothetically be localized or systemic, coupled or decoupled. It was a huge part of our early global recession/depression threads.

FFS, it's still a main part of the underlying discussions in the EU and US, central banks, currency valuations, and trade deficits. Most every economist, politician, financier, banker, and market analyst talks about "decoupling" in terms of systemic risks or domino contagion affects. It's not necessarily isolationist, protectionist, or anti-trade. It's theoretical and hypothetical with many moving parts.

Dread might be correct in calling it junk theory in our increasingly interconnected (coupled) world....but that just confirms political economics isn't the "science" it's cracked up to be, and monetary policy can't be extracted from its political roots. Yeah, talk about the many faces of "decoupling", huh.

And this, kiddies, is why you shouldn't freebase your medications. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

And this, kiddies, is why you shouldn't freebase your medications. :bored:

---

:haha: You were on banned-status during those previous discussions, Cain. Too bad you missed out on that timeframe forum fun.

You must be undergoing more of that memory damage from trying to smoke medication. <shrug>

@ Cain and Loki, feel free to give the ONE definition of Decoupling, as it's been used in the last twenty years....or how it's being used today.

Feel free to give me a reason to bother. Really.

It'll just go in one ear, get twisted into something crazy, and probably go right out the other ear, like most everything else. If by some minor miracle that's not what happens, then you'll recall it as a discussion about about the lovely shade of green that the Republikans turned the sky into. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Feel free to give me a reason to bother. Really.

---

Of course you don't have to bother. :rolleyes: But since your recent posts haven't had much content beyond sounding like an angry troll, your choice was clearly made. You get a bigger kick out of putting people on the defensive than having to defend your own personal views. Dude, that's bar room behavior.