T Nation

French Presidential Elections

As all of you know, French people went to the polls yesterday for the 1st round and predictably enough Sarkozy and Royal made it to the 2nd round. Sarkozy heading with a slight margin (around 54%).

If he gets into office - and everything points out he will - the geopolitical scene will certainly be affected. He was the only French politician I know of to support the war on Iraq, has the Israeli government backing him up and plays the “terror” card to thwart the law and strip the public of its liberties.

Read on about the man in this portray;

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/04/french_election.html

Excerpt:

Serious European newspapers who have watched Sarkozy up close are similarly severe in their judgements about him. For the S?ddeutsche Zeitung, Sarko is “a macho without scruples who plays on the fear of the people.” For the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sarkozy is “the most ambitious and pitiless politician in Europe who has no real convictions, but who chooses to align himself with the worst whims of the electorate.” The Spanish daily El Pais sees in Sarko “the regenerators of the Spanish right of the end of the 19th century.” And the Italian press frequently compares Sarkozy to Gianfranco Fini, the former Berlusconi vice-premier who is the leader of the so-called “post-fascist” Alleanza Nationale (the party Fini, a former fascist youth leader, built on the ruins of the neo-fascist, Mussolini-worshiping Italian Social Movement.)

Isn’t France a democracy? How could they even come close to electing a man that supports the Iraq war?

Perhaps all the Europeans do not oppose the war as our media would have us believe.

Yikes! A Frenchman with some potential balls? Now I know the world is coming to an end. Next thing you know, they might actually fight back if someone were to attack them. This is surreal.

I would have preferred Bayrou. Royale couldn’t run a newspaper stand and Sarkozy’s most prominent trait is his authoritarian streak. Moreover while German nationalists may be more dangerous, French nationalists are certainly more annoying.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Isn’t France a democracy? How could they even come close to electing a man that supports the Iraq war? [/quote]

That way too simplistic a reasoning.

As I’m sure you’ve heard, the election of 2002 had the neo-fascist LePen pass the 1st round. People got so scared that this year, more than 80% of people - Ipso speculates on 87% - showed up on ballot day (let’s see THAT happen in your democracy). The trouble is, the only other heavy contender is a lady. Leaving aside the general macho attitude pervasive in France, she didn’t present a consistent program and made so many blatant mistakes that even the traditional left-wing voters were repelled.

In short, it’s a matter of not having an alternative and has nothing to do with the stupid war.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the majority of Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps all the Europeans do not oppose the war as our media would have us believe.[/quote]

Read the European media then.

I don’t mean this as an insult, but Europeans are a lot more aware about what’s going on in the world than you guys. They didn’t suddenly discover who the Talibans were on 9/11. This level of understanding of world issues, in my opinion, is what had people laugh at the WMD claim.

Darn! You managed to draw the debate to Iraq

[quote]etaco wrote:
I would have preferred Bayrou. Royale couldn’t run a newspaper stand and Sarkozy’s most prominent trait is his authoritarian streak. Moreover while German nationalists may be more dangerous, French nationalists are certainly more annoying.[/quote]

Once more, etaco manages to make us ranting crowd look pathetic by putting a well-thought concise and insightful comment. Kudos!

  1. The press in countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark has more than 70% leftist journalists. Take this into account when interpreting most stories.

  2. Demonizing yet another “I want Israel to exist as a nation”-person… how “new” of you lixy… don’t quit your dayjob, ok?

[quote]lixy wrote:

Read the European media then.

I don’t mean this as an insult, but Europeans are a lot more aware about what’s going on in the world than you guys. They didn’t suddenly discover who the Talibans were on 9/11. This level of understanding of world issues, in my opinion, is what had people laugh at the WMD claim.
[/quote]

I do agree that international news in Europe is far more broad and all encompassing on world issues then the U.S. media. We’re still staring at Anna Nichols tit’s and are mourning the pass of the only quality feature on that whore’s physique.

However, there is no fucking way Europeans could have known about the WMD situation in Iraq any better than anybody else with out a quality espionage network informing them.

Yes, most people are against the war, but not to the point of abandoning the troops and allowing Iraq to turn in to a total quagmire and a cesspool for terrorism.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Isn’t France a democracy? How could they even come close to electing a man that supports the Iraq war?

That way too simplistic a reasoning.
[/quote]
spin away

This is a major issue of our times. 54% of the French would not vote that way if they were strongly opposed.

[quote]
Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps all the Europeans do not oppose the war as our media would have us believe.

Read the European media then.

I don’t mean this as an insult, but Europeans are a lot more aware about what’s going on in the world than you guys. They didn’t suddenly discover who the Talibans were on 9/11. This level of understanding of world issues, in my opinion, is what had people laugh at the WMD claim.
…[/quote]

The European media is just as silly as the American media and no more prone to tell the truth.

Who didn’t know who the Taliban was? They were in the news constantly before 9/11 for their brutal treatment of the population, destroying the Buddhas, manipulating the opium trade…

Once again you are full of shit.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
However, there is no fucking way Europeans could have known about the WMD situation in Iraq any better than anybody else with out a quality espionage network informing them. [/quote]

I’m gonna have to disagree with you on that one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4125720/

Explain to me the rationale that you use to equate bringing the troops home with abandoming them? The way I see it, leaving them in that Godforsaken hellhole IS abondoning them.

As for the “quagmire and a cesspool for terrorism”, haven’t you been watching the news lately? Well over three hundred people killed on single day last week. You might have a different viewpoint, but it sure looks like a quagmire to me.

The beauty of a two round election is that fringe candidates can be given a shot at leadership in the first round and then have them dashed in the second round. Think about it–in the first round Bush and Gore win the first round election and Nader gets defeated–this is good for two reasons:

  1. Naders voice and opinions reach a wider base.

  2. In the second election Bush probably would have been defeated because the “Naderites” are now going for Gore.

Its a win-win situation. I would also like to see this or ranked choice voting being seriously discussed.

Viva la France.

Lixy…please go to the gym and report back on your lifts.

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
However, there is no fucking way Europeans could have known about the WMD situation in Iraq any better than anybody else with out a quality espionage network informing them.

I’m gonna have to disagree with you on that one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4125720/


[/quote]
Newsweek? Aren’t the they ones who admittedly, falsely reported that they were flushing Korans at Gitmo resulting in the attack of American soldiers in Afghanistan. And please don’t ever bother using Hillary’s self aggrandizing organization as a reference to anything. No, you didn’t know, you still don’t and you couldn’t have. You may have thought the WMD was bullshit.

You may have even felt strongly about it, but you couldn’t known. I have been to Europe many times. I even lived there for a spell. I know the difference between American and European media.

[quote]
Yes, most people are against the war, but not to the point of abandoning the troops and allowing Iraq to turn in to a total quagmire and a cesspool for terrorism.

Explain to me the rationale that you use to equate bringing the troops home with abandoming them? The way I see it, leaving them in that Godforsaken hellhole IS abondoning them.

As for the “quagmire and a cesspool for terrorism”, haven’t you been watching the news lately? Well over three hundred people killed on single day last week. You might have a different viewpoint, but it sure looks like a quagmire to me.[/quote]

Oh it’s a mess, but actual progress has been made there. All you want to see is the bad. What I mean is that if the U.S. leaves that little fledging government will be crushed and either some fascist Islmo-nazi’s will take over, like, al sadr, or the country will be torn apart in to different segments.

The bigger fear is it will draw other countries into the civil war. Like in Yugoslavia, Saddam kept everybody equally oppressed and had no issue committing mass murder to keep the peace. So the country was more or less kept peaceful.

Bottom line, leaving Iraq the way it is now would be a huge disaster and terribly irresponsible. I think it sucks that we’re there and I want to leave, but you can’t fix a mistake with another mistake. We have to be able to leave it somewhat stable and self sustaining. We leave now we’ll be back and so will other countries. I want that less then leaving now.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Lixy…please go to the gym and report back on your lifts.[/quote]

It’s midnight where I am and am waiting for the Zn and Mg in my ZMA to be absorbed before getting a casein drink and hitting the sack.

Also, my numbers are non of your concern. I’m training for aesthetics reasons only. In due time, I’ll post a set of pics and then you can butcher me. Meanwhile, try to stick to the topic of the thread.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Lixy…please go to the gym and report back on your lifts.

It’s midnight where I am and am waiting for the Zn and Mg in my ZMA to be absorbed before getting a casein drink and hitting the sack.

Also, my numbers are non of your concern. I’m training for aesthetics reasons only. In due time, I’ll post a set of pics and then you can butcher me. Meanwhile, try to stick to the topic of the thread.

[/quote]

“the topic”

which is: “let us attack every politican to the right of stalin”

or…

“let us demonize israel and everyone that supports them”…

agendatime… yay

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Lixy…please go to the gym and report back on your lifts.[/quote]

lol

I’m guessing the majority of the posters here have not lived in France?! If so, please excuse the oversight.

I have lived 18 years in Switzerland (on the border with France, 10 min actually) and played rugby there for a few years.

It is easily understandable why Sarkozy is a prime candidate! Delinquance and violence are major factors that are initiating french people to vote more right wing. Paris, Marseilles (all major cities) and even smaller towns all have a sense of insecurity now that was just non existant 20 years ago! These “racaille” as they are called are just trouble makers, but to a point that they have become a major disturbance to soceity on the whole. Many of you ( i hope) will remember the riots?!

Secondly, there is a very very large problem with respect to immigration. In many areas up to 40-50% are of foreign origins. Many of them enter illegally and the French people as a result lose out on many fronts (unemployment, social welfare etc). ofcourse, the answer is not to shut all the borders and kick them all out! This is ludicrous however, sarkozy has been the one to mention this much to the dismay to Royale and or LePen (Facist) as he “appears” to have found a good balance in his views.

Royale is intelligent, eloquent and a peoples person. This is why she is such a good candidate as is viewed highly by the french people. She is not rash and has not come under public scrutiny as much as Sarkozy has. This in a sense puts her at an advantage. I personally think she could become a good president, especially since her ideas are clear and she has had a history of performing well with respects to her promises: Sarkozy on the other hand I think will be not so reliable.

[quote]swissrugby67 wrote:
I’m guessing the majority of the posters here have not lived in France?! If so, please excuse the oversight.

I have lived 18 years in Switzerland (on the border with France, 10 min actually) and played rugby there for a few years.

It is easily understandable why Sarkozy is a prime candidate! Delinquance and violence are major factors that are initiating french people to vote more right wing. Paris, Marseilles (all major cities) and even smaller towns all have a sense of insecurity now that was just non existant 20 years ago! These “racaille” as they are called are just trouble makers, but to a point that they have become a major disturbance to soceity on the whole. Many of you ( i hope) will remember the riots?!

Secondly, there is a very very large problem with respect to immigration. In many areas up to 40-50% are of foreign origins. Many of them enter illegally and the French people as a result lose out on many fronts (unemployment, social welfare etc). ofcourse, the answer is not to shut all the borders and kick them all out! This is ludicrous however, sarkozy has been the one to mention this much to the dismay to Royale and or LePen (Facist) as he “appears” to have found a good balance in his views.

Royale is intelligent, eloquent and a peoples person. This is why she is such a good candidate as is viewed highly by the french people. She is not rash and has not come under public scrutiny as much as Sarkozy has. This in a sense puts her at an advantage. I personally think she could become a good president, especially since her ideas are clear and she has had a history of performing well with respects to her promises: Sarkozy on the other hand I think will be not so reliable.

[/quote]

Could you elaborate? Why don’t you think Sarkozy is reliable in a political sense? I have followed french politics for quite some time, and I have seen no indications that Royale is more credible or reliable.

[quote]etaco wrote:
I would have preferred Bayrou. Royale couldn’t run a newspaper stand and Sarkozy’s most prominent trait is his authoritarian streak. Moreover while German nationalists may be more dangerous, French nationalists are certainly more annoying. [/quote]

Not sure I agree with you. France has all kinds of huge structural economic problems, and Sarkozy is the only one who is going to make an effort to change the course of his nation. I’m not a fan of authoritarians either (see: Giuliani, Rudy), but banlieu rioting was no joke.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
etaco wrote:
I would have preferred Bayrou. Royale couldn’t run a newspaper stand and Sarkozy’s most prominent trait is his authoritarian streak. Moreover while German nationalists may be more dangerous, French nationalists are certainly more annoying.

Not sure I agree with you. France has all kinds of huge structural economic problems, and Sarkozy is the only one who is going to make an effort to change the course of his nation. I’m not a fan of authoritarians either (see: Giuliani, Rudy), but banlieu rioting was no joke. [/quote]

I agree, france needs Sarkozy right now. They need a man not afraid to do what it takes to improve on the situation. France needs to get the economy back on track, to slow down the immigration until they have the apparatus to integrate those they already have recieved.

The problem in Europe is that the leftists shout “racism!!!” as soon as someone make comments like I just did… “WHAT?! reducing immigration?! YOU RACIST!!”… it really pollutes any serious debate.

Tolerant nations acceping intolerant immigrants…does not work at the end of the day.