Poll of the Day > France's presidential election is soon underway. Who've you got?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Choo choo choose one.
---

Everyone is saying Le Pen won't win, but then Trump did, so this could be interesting. I think either way we will be hearing about riots in the morning. The French love those anyway.
---

I'm honestly hoping Le Pen wins, if only for the fact it could be another severe damaging blow to the house of dictatorial corruption that is the EU.
---

Runner_style posted...

I'm honestly hoping Le Pen wins, if only for the fact it could be another severe damaging blow to the house of dictatorial corruption that is the EU.

That's my thought. Economic globalization is terrible. The only people it benefits are the upper portion of the 1%. Dumb people can easily be fed a lie to the contrary, but it's clear that people who like control want more of it, and right now money affords them that. Decentralizing things allows more local freedoms and everywhere ends up more empowered in several ways. I don't care if it takes Russian hackers to break the ruling elite's grip. A means to an end.
---

Ya Russians have everyone's best interest at heart. Hahah

Lil69Leo posted...

Ya Russians have everyone's best interest at heart. Hahah

They don't, but that doesn't mean they can't sometimes align with your own.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

The only people it benefits are the upper portion of the 1%.

But, muh Harbor Freight Tools!

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Lil69Leo posted...

Ya Russians have everyone's best interest at heart. Hahah

They don't, but that doesn't mean they can't sometimes align with your own.

If your ideals align with Russia then you need to take a serious look at your choices.

Ralph
---

Le Pen. People talk. There are people who are deathly afraid of the immigration crisis. She's going to have a stealth win.

I've read that if Le Pen wins, then the whole continent would be screwed. I hope that's not true though.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Choo choo choose one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya2Sx8xmMpc
---

tbh, people have been complaining about the US's 2-party system for years but look at what France's election system gave them: It's like an infinitely worse version of the 2016 election.

I'm slightly favoring Le Pen only because of her opponent's EU stances where he announced plans to "punish" the UK for Brexit and because France's open-door policy has opened the country to repeated acts of terror and violence.
---

Zeus posted...

tbh, people have been complaining about the US's 2-party system for years but look at what France's election system gave them: It's like an infinitely worse version of the 2016 election.

I'm slightly favoring Le Pen only because of her opponent's EU stances where he announced plans to "punish" the UK for Brexit and because France's open-door policy has opened the country to repeated acts of terror and violence.

I'd argue it's not worse. They choose their two favourites, not super-delegates or some shit, then pit those two against each other.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Zeus posted...

tbh, people have been complaining about the US's 2-party system for years but look at what France's election system gave them: It's like an infinitely worse version of the 2016 election.

I'm slightly favoring Le Pen only because of her opponent's EU stances where he announced plans to "punish" the UK for Brexit and because France's open-door policy has opened the country to repeated acts of terror and violence.

I'd argue it's not worse. They choose their two favourites, not super-delegates or some shit, then pit those two against each other.

Hillary won without superdelegates and the Republicans don't have superdelegates. And Macron is literally nobody's favorite.
---

Zeus posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Zeus posted...

tbh, people have been complaining about the US's 2-party system for years but look at what France's election system gave them: It's like an infinitely worse version of the 2016 election.

I'm slightly favoring Le Pen only because of her opponent's EU stances where he announced plans to "punish" the UK for Brexit and because France's open-door policy has opened the country to repeated acts of terror and violence.

I'd argue it's not worse. They choose their two favourites, not super-delegates or some shit, then pit those two against each other.

Hillary won without superdelegates and the Republicans don't have superdelegates. And Macron is literally nobody's favorite.

Somebody better tell Trump to get out of the White House then. How embarrassing that everyone except you seems to have been ignorant of this.

PS: I know the electoral college (and IMO the entire US electoral system) are dog shit.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Zeus posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Zeus posted...

tbh, people have been complaining about the US's 2-party system for years but look at what France's election system gave them: It's like an infinitely worse version of the 2016 election.

I'm slightly favoring Le Pen only because of her opponent's EU stances where he announced plans to "punish" the UK for Brexit and because France's open-door policy has opened the country to repeated acts of terror and violence.

I'd argue it's not worse. They choose their two favourites, not super-delegates or some shit, then pit those two against each other.

Hillary won without superdelegates and the Republicans don't have superdelegates. And Macron is literally nobody's favorite.

Somebody better tell Trump to get out of the White House then. How embarrassing that everyone except you seems to have been ignorant of this.

PS: I know the electoral college (and IMO the entire US electoral system) are dog shit.

Not sure why you'd bring up the primaries then act if I was responding to the generals, especially considering that the generals doesn't have super-delegates. More importantly, there's no problem with the electoral college (which works EXACTLY how it was designed) or primary system. And, thanks to France's election, we know that systems which allow for more than two parties function even worse than our two-party system.
---

Two awful parties that basically fucked everyone over post-Carter. Yeah, awesome....
---

My money is one the french one
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Two awful parties that basically fucked everyone over post-Carter. Yeah, awesome....

lolwut? Should I even ask how you reached that weird conclusion and arbitrary timeframe?
---

Mead posted...

My money is one the french one

Frenchy McFrench French? He's not running.
---

I think Le Pen would be a disaster. I know very little about Macron but I like what I've seen, so easy choice for me.
---

Doesn't really matter. ;.;
Macron is an absolute total nightmare out of a horror movie ...
... and if Le Pen were to somehow pull off an astonishing miracle come-from-way-far-behind victory -- after three months she'll just end up choosing to totally backstab her supporters just like Trump did. ;.;

No matter whom we vote for, and even no matter who wins, all we ever get is yet more neoliberal globalism and yet more wars. ;.;




LeetCheet wrote:

I've read that if Le Pen wins, then the whole continent would be screwed. I hope that's not true though.

"Au contraire", as the French say. ^.^
If somebody were to win, who then were to actually hold true to Le Pen's campaigning (as before), then most likely the whole continent would be saved.
France directly, and the other countries by following their winning example.

(Now, the EU would indeed be screwed.
But the EU, by forcing the horde of invaders and neoliberal globalism and "austerity" and so on upon all of its victims, is precisely what is ruining Europe; the EU's demise would be an unimaginably wonderful thing indeed.)


That's why the elites use every trick and pull every string to make sure that this never happens.
And that in the very rare exception case, when one such as Trump does somehow win despite their efforts, they make sure that he gets turned to the dark side within three months or so. >.<




TheCyborgNinja wrote:

Runner_style posted...

I'm honestly hoping Le Pen wins, if only for the fact it could be another severe damaging blow to the house of dictatorial corruption that is the EU.

That's my thought. Economic globalization is terrible. The only people it benefits are the upper portion of the 1%. Dumb people can easily be fed a lie to the contrary, but it's clear that people who like control want more of it, and right now money affords them that. Decentralizing things allows more local freedoms and everywhere ends up more empowered in several ways. I don't care if it takes Russian hackers to break the ruling elite's grip. A means to an end.

I feel exactly the same way. And very strongly so.
---

Who the fuck cares
---

Hoping for Macron. If Le Pen wins, the chances of the entire EU project unraveling are high.
---

Macron wins!

cute_fan posted...

after three months she'll just end up choosing to totally backstab her supporters just like Trump did. ;.;

How does that even make sense? Trump has pretty much trying doing what he said he'd do on the campaign trail. Attempting to keep your promises isn't "backstabbing." It's not like he said he'd be pro-whistleblower than arrested more whistleblowers than any previous president, or that he was for transparent government then back the NSA's insane programs.

Trump promised to renegotiate trade deals, he has Canada and Mexico coming to the table. He promised a wall, he's drafting plans and trying to get approval (the payment part is still murky, but he could work it into the trade agreements). He promised to repeal and replace the ACA, which he's trying to do. He tried his travel ban repeatedly, but was blocked on that. And he undid countless of Obama's EOs. Honestly, there are a lot of things you can criticize Trump for -- poor planning, some iffy nominations, etc -- but so far keeping to his word hasn't been one of them.
---

How disappointing :(
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Runner_style posted...

I'm honestly hoping Le Pen wins, if only for the fact it could be another severe damaging blow to the house of dictatorial corruption that is the EU.

That's my thought. Economic globalization is terrible. The only people it benefits are the upper portion of the 1%. Dumb people can easily be fed a lie to the contrary, but it's clear that people who like control want more of it, and right now money affords them that. Decentralizing things allows more local freedoms and everywhere ends up more empowered in several ways. I don't care if it takes Russian hackers to break the ruling elite's grip. A means to an end.

Economic globalization is better for almost everyone. why do you think people in the 50s and 60s could only afford 1 TV while now even the poor have multiple Tvs and game consoles, smarthphones and computers?

the only people who have it worst are people who worked on manufacturing in developed nations. everyone else is way better on globalization
---

RedPixel posted...

Le Pen. People talk. There are people who are deathly afraid of the immigration crisis. She's going to have a stealth win.

Funny how far rightists think CENTRISTS are SJWs
---

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

RedPixel posted...

Le Pen. People talk. There are people who are deathly afraid of the immigration crisis. She's going to have a stealth win.

Funny how far rightists think CENTRISTS are SJWs

Except Macron isn't really a centrist, after all he was hand-picked as a minister by a far-left Prime Minister and carried out his policies. The media may have dubbed him a centrist to get him over with the people and, technically speaking, he may not have been as far left as some of the other choices, but he was a leftist.



Metal_Gear_Link posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Runner_style posted...

I'm honestly hoping Le Pen wins, if only for the fact it could be another severe damaging blow to the house of dictatorial corruption that is the EU.

That's my thought. Economic globalization is terrible. The only people it benefits are the upper portion of the 1%. Dumb people can easily be fed a lie to the contrary, but it's clear that people who like control want more of it, and right now money affords them that. Decentralizing things allows more local freedoms and everywhere ends up more empowered in several ways. I don't care if it takes Russian hackers to break the ruling elite's grip. A means to an end.

Economic globalization is better for almost everyone. why do you think people in the 50s and 60s could only afford 1 TV while now even the poor have multiple Tvs and game consoles, smarthphones and computers?

the only people who have it worst are people who worked on manufacturing in developed nations. everyone else is way better on globalization

Why do you confuse correlation with causation? The availability of tvs had less to do with globalization than it did with improvements to the technology itself. The only difference is that US labor was being undercut by foreign labor, leaving people to increasingly buy on credit rather than through their wages. That's not to say that globalization is inherently negative, but it's a tremendous tool for helping the rich get richer, the nation's poor stay poor, and it benefits the manufacturing nation more than it does our nation's poor.
---

Zeus posted...

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

RedPixel posted...

Le Pen. People talk. There are people who are deathly afraid of the immigration crisis. She's going to have a stealth win.

Funny how far rightists think CENTRISTS are SJWs

Except Macron isn't really a centrist, after all he was hand-picked as a minister by a far-left Prime Minister and carried out his policies. The media may have dubbed him a centrist to get him over with the people and, technically speaking, he may not have been as far left as some of the other choices, but he was a leftist.



Metal_Gear_Link posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Runner_style posted...

I'm honestly hoping Le Pen wins, if only for the fact it could be another severe damaging blow to the house of dictatorial corruption that is the EU.

That's my thought. Economic globalization is terrible. The only people it benefits are the upper portion of the 1%. Dumb people can easily be fed a lie to the contrary, but it's clear that people who like control want more of it, and right now money affords them that. Decentralizing things allows more local freedoms and everywhere ends up more empowered in several ways. I don't care if it takes Russian hackers to break the ruling elite's grip. A means to an end.

Economic globalization is better for almost everyone. why do you think people in the 50s and 60s could only afford 1 TV while now even the poor have multiple Tvs and game consoles, smarthphones and computers?

the only people who have it worst are people who worked on manufacturing in developed nations. everyone else is way better on globalization

Why do you confuse correlation with causation? The availability of tvs had less to do with globalization than it did with improvements to the technology itself. The only difference is that US labor was being undercut by foreign labor, leaving people to increasingly buy on credit rather than through their wages. That's not to say that globalization is inherently negative, but it's a tremendous tool for helping the rich get richer, the nation's poor stay poor, and it benefits the manufacturing nation more than it does our nation's poor.

Poor people where not even able to afford a Tv in the 60s ... only people who work on manufacturing in developed nations are worse today...sure the rich are better on today but so are the poor who not work in manufacturing, the middle class who doesn't work in manufacturing...
we also helped the middle class grow on developing nations which means bigger markets.

also Macron is a centrist. if the far right calls you a leftists and the far left gets angry because you are not progresive then you are a centrist http://www.salon.com/2017/05/06/barack-obama-endorses-emmanuel-macron-but-dont-kid-yourself-the-french-ex-banker-is-no-progressive/
---

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

Poor people where not even able to afford a Tv in the 60s ...

Which literally isn't true at all.
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awmi10/television.html

In 1950 only 9 percent of American households had a television set, but by 1960 the figure had reached 90 percent.

Which again, had less to do with globalization than improvements to the technology but don't let the facts get in the way of your completely moronic claims.

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

only people who work on manufacturing in developed nations are worse today..

Actually, they're better off today. Do you know what they had before manufacturing? It's not like they were captured and rounded up into manufacturing camps, it was better than the options they used to have. Manufacturing has been a tremendous benefit to many of these nations, turning them from undeveloped nations into developing nations in many cases.

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

sure the rich are better on today but so are the poor who not work in manufacturing, the middle class who doesn't work in manufacturing...

Which isn't true in the slightest, considering that many of the people who would have been earning a LIVING wage in manufacturing in the US now work in retail and the food industry which generally only pay minimum wage.
---

What the fuck? Zeus actually provided a link for something? I'm shocked.

Anyways, Macron won and I am relieved.
---

Erik_P posted...

What the fuck? Zeus actually provided a link for something? I'm shocked.

Anyways, Macron won and I am relieved.

Unlike you, I constantly provide links for everything or reference specific sources. Granted, you just ignore them anyway so it doesn't matter.

And you're "relieved" because you're ignorant. A EU breakup would have only benefited the US, in addition to likely benefiting the people of France.
---

Which literally isn't true at all.
https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awmi10/television.html

In 1950 only 9 percent of American households had a television set, but by 1960 the figure had reached 90 percent.

Which again, had less to do with globalization than improvements to the technology but don't let the facts get in the way of your completely moronic claims.

back in the 60s there were 0.9 Tvs per household. now the ratio is 2.93

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/TamaraTamazashvili.shtml

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2010/u-s-homes-add-even-more-tv-sets-in-2010.html

Actually, they're better off today. Do you know what they had before manufacturing? It's not like they were captured and rounded up into manufacturing camps, it was better than the options they used to have. Manufacturing has been a tremendous benefit to many of these nations, turning them from undeveloped nations into developing nations in many cases.

People on developing nations are better of because of those jobs. only people on developed nations who used to work in manufacturing have it worse. everyone else in developed or developing world have it better

Which isn't true in the slightest, considering that many of the people who would have been earning a LIVING wage in manufacturing in the US now work in retail and the food industry which generally only pay minimum wage.

That is why we must focus on affordable college and training...why do you think there are so many Skilled immigrant visas?

besides taking jobs away from the current Indians, vietnamites and mexicans who are doing those jobs to bring them back here is as moralli bad as taking them away from 1980s , 1990's and 00's american workers. which will also make everything much more expensive again.

China is aware that the rise in wages and automation is taking jobs away from china so that is why they are transitioning from manufacturing to consumer and services. Manufacturing Jobs are leaving china but china is doing a great transition sice they grew 6.7%...do you want to know why?

over the past three decades the U.S. government spent $14.2 trillion fighting 13 wars. That money could have been invested in America, building infrastructure and creating jobs. China has an economy big enough to be world police too, but they are not wasting that money like America Did

We should stop spending that much money in wars and demand Nato mebers to help More
---

Zeus posted...

Erik_P posted...

What the fuck? Zeus actually provided a link for something? I'm shocked.

Anyways, Macron won and I am relieved.

Unlike you, I constantly provide links for everything or reference specific sources. Granted, you just ignore them anyway so it doesn't matter.

And you're "relieved" because you're ignorant. A EU breakup would have only benefited the US, in addition to likely benefiting the people of France.

You "constantly" provide sources yet you never provided a single link when you claimed coal was cheaper and cleaner than other energy sources.

Marine Le Pen was France's version of Donald Trump. She would've been terrible for France.
---

Erik_P posted...

Zeus posted...

Erik_P posted...

What the fuck? Zeus actually provided a link for something? I'm shocked.

Anyways, Macron won and I am relieved.

Unlike you, I constantly provide links for everything or reference specific sources. Granted, you just ignore them anyway so it doesn't matter.

And you're "relieved" because you're ignorant. A EU breakup would have only benefited the US, in addition to likely benefiting the people of France.

You "constantly" provide sources yet you never provided a single link when you claimed coal was cheaper and cleaner than other energy sources.

Marine Le Pen was France's version of Donald Trump. She would've been terrible for France.

yep and Macron was something that is very rare here. an actuall centrist which cannot exist here because of the electoral college
---

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

back in the 60s there were 0.9 Tvs per household. now the ratio is 2.93

You claimed that the poor didn't have tvs, not that the poor didn't have multiple tvs.



And, more importantly, the technology has once improved which has little to do with where the products are being manufactured.

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

People on developing nations are better of because of those jobs. only people on developed nations who used to work in manufacturing have it worse. everyone else in developed or developing world have it better

...what? The manufacturing section comprised a huge amount of unskilled labor in the US which is now paid far less and has moved much further down the chain. It's not simply a matter of the people who lost their jobs directly, but also for those who don't have to jobs to go into and are forced into worse-paying positions. More importantly, thanks to an excess of unskilled labor, those other jobs are able to pay less. The export of labor -- something that the founding fathers always feared -- has systematically gutted the lower middle class and a large chunk of our economy. (Granted, while a certain amount of loss is due to and would be due to automation as well, the export of jobs means lowered wages which meant lower purchasing power which in turn further compresses those US markets.)

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

That is why we must focus on affordable college and training...why do you think there are so many Skilled immigrant visas?

roflmao... oh my god... you're so fucking ignorant. Why do you think we have so many people with college degrees working unskilled labor? Clearly we don't have an issue with affordability of schools when we ALREADY have one of the world's higher graduation rates (higher, in fact, than many places which give college away for free) yet not the jobs to support them. More importantly, I'll tell you why we have the H-1B Visa program and it's the same reason companies export -- it's cheaper for employers! Equally skilled American candidates are frequently rejected because H-1Bs are:
A) Contracted to ONLY work for that one employer, meaning that they come with a fixed term and can't quit without violating their visa. Likewise, they're less inclined to quit because the country seems foreign to them.
B) They're not subject to all of the same labor laws as US employees
C) You can pay them less.

This is why you see job postings which requirements that candidates have more years of experience in software than years that the software has existed (something that the creator of said software joked about being ineligible for that job). There are deliberately impossible or prohibitive standards set up SPECIFICALLY to recruit foreign labor.

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

besides taking jobs away from the current Indians, vietnamites and mexicans who are doing those jobs to bring them back here is as moralli bad as taking them away from 1980s , 1990's and 00's american workers. which will also make everything much more expensive again.

If we had sensible tariffs in place -- the very thing which helped to finance our government, protect American jobs, AND gave Americans more money since they didn't have to pay federal income taxes -- the cost of goods wouldn't be that different AND it would benefit the US economy so workers would have far more money to buy things. Conversely, the removal of tariffs fucked the US worker and, to make up that for that shortfall which enabled their jobs to be lost, the workers were fucked again with more taxes.
---

Erik_P posted...

You "constantly" provide sources yet you never provided a single link when you claimed coal was cheaper and cleaner than other energy sources.

No, I said that if another energy source was as cheap as coal while also being cleaner, it would be more widely used, which is a HUGE difference. And the source? The fact that we're still using coal. The drop for coal hasn't been any issue with coal itself, but instead government regulation designed to kill the industry which is why the big drop happened during the years when we had a president where repeated legislation was passed against it.

But don't let the truth get in the way of misrepresenting my claims so you can fight a strawman instead of the actual argument.

Erik_P posted...

Marine Le Pen was France's version of Donald Trump. She would've been terrible for France.

Except no on pretty much on every front. A Le Pen PMship would have meant fewer French terror attacks, improvements to domestic policy, and an emphasis on putting France first for a chance.

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

yep and Macron was something that is very rare here. an actuall centrist which cannot exist here because of the electoral college

lolwut? Again, he was the crony of a far-left PM who carried out that PM's dirty work. His strongly pro-EU stances -- including punishing the UK for opting out of the EU -- demonstrate how far left he is. The centrist claims are largely a fiction designed to trick gullible rubes.
---

Zeus posted...

Erik_P posted...

You "constantly" provide sources yet you never provided a single link when you claimed coal was cheaper and cleaner than other energy sources.

No, I said that if another energy source was as cheap as coal while also being cleaner, it would be more widely used, which is a HUGE difference. And the source? The fact that we're still using coal. The drop for coal hasn't been any issue with coal itself, but instead government regulation designed to kill the industry which is why the big drop happened during the years when we had a president where repeated legislation was passed against it.

But don't let the truth get in the way of misrepresenting my claims so you can fight a strawman instead of the actual argument.

Erik_P posted...

Marine Le Pen was France's version of Donald Trump. She would've been terrible for France.

Except no on pretty much on every front. A Le Pen PMship would have meant fewer French terror attacks, improvements to domestic policy, and an emphasis on putting France first for a chance.

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

yep and Macron was something that is very rare here. an actuall centrist which cannot exist here because of the electoral college

lolwut? Again, he was the crony of a far-left PM who carried out that PM's dirty work. His strongly pro-EU stances -- including punishing the UK for opting out of the EU -- demonstrate how far left he is. The centrist claims are largely a fiction designed to trick gullible rubes.

According to Trump justice warriors everyone who is not far right is a leftist SJW.... He worked for a left wing party but formed a centrist party based on centrist policies. Changing party is common in countries where there are more than 2 prominent parties when a person doesnt agree with his former party anymore stop trying to apply America's politics to every otehr countries.

heck he is even called a 'Radical centrist' on french media https://medium.com/@keith.vansickle/can-the-radical-centrists-win-in-france-7b7243713848
---

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

According to Trump justice warriors everyone who is not far right is a leftist SJW....

...what? The only so-called justice warriors are leftists because it's a moniker they adopted.

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

He worked for a left wing party but formed a centrist party based on centrist policies changing party is common in countries where there are more than 2 prominent parties, stop trying to apply America's politics to every otehr countries

Except no, his policies are very much in keeping with his far-left masters. He's not for anything truly conservative and only favors liberal causes, in addition to being the strongest advocate for the EU which is an overwhelmingly leftist institution given its redistributionary practices, immigration policies, etc

Also, returning to this:
Metal_Gear_Link posted...

an actuall centrist which cannot exist here because of the electoral college

It's not true in the last. First of all, the electoral has nothing to do with anything. Secondly, we MOSTLY get candidates closer to center each time. Excluding Jim Webb, Hillary was closer to center than her competitors on *most* issues (guns being the biggest exception). John McCain was an incredibly moderate candidate (based on his 2008 ratings, since then and before then he showed as harder right but, in general, he's frequently co-sponsored a lot of bills with democrats including iirc most of the bills Obama was involved in), who did lose to a more extreme opponent.

As for this election, the furthest left candidate was Bernie Sanders and the furthest right was Ted Cruz (and the most libertarian was Rand Paul). Neither secured a party nomination. Instead it went to Hillary Clinton, who notably suggested the smallest minimum wage increase of the remaining Dem candidates, and Donald Trump, who notably was the only leading candidate who said he wanted to retain parts of the ACA during a debate whereas his opponents -- Cruz and Rubio -- wanted it completely repealed (Kasich was, of course, softer but he hadn't been a serious candidate for a long time at that point since he had been mathematically eliminated)
---

Le pen lost

Zeus posted...

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

According to Trump justice warriors everyone who is not far right is a leftist SJW....

...what? The only so-called justice warriors are leftists because it's a moniker they adopted.

Metal_Gear_Link posted...

He worked for a left wing party but formed a centrist party based on centrist policies changing party is common in countries where there are more than 2 prominent parties, stop trying to apply America's politics to every otehr countries

Except no, his policies are very much in keeping with his far-left masters. He's not for anything truly conservative and only favors liberal causes, in addition to being the strongest advocate for the EU which is an overwhelmingly leftist institution given its redistributionary practices, immigration policies, etc

Also, returning to this:
Metal_Gear_Link posted...

an actuall centrist which cannot exist here because of the electoral college

It's not true in the last. First of all, the electoral has nothing to do with anything. Secondly, we MOSTLY get candidates closer to center each time. Excluding Jim Webb, Hillary was closer to center than her competitors on *most* issues (guns being the biggest exception). John McCain was an incredibly moderate candidate (based on his 2008 ratings, since then and before then he showed as harder right but, in general, he's frequently co-sponsored a lot of bills with democrats including iirc most of the bills Obama was involved in), who did lose to a more extreme opponent.

As for this election, the furthest left candidate was Bernie Sanders and the furthest right was Ted Cruz (and the most libertarian was Rand Paul). Neither secured a party nomination. Instead it went to Hillary Clinton, who notably suggested the smallest minimum wage increase of the remaining Dem candidates, and Donald Trump, who notably was the only leading candidate who said he wanted to retain parts of the ACA during a debate whereas his opponents -- Cruz and Rubio -- wanted it completely repealed (Kasich was, of course, softer but he hadn't been a serious candidate for a long time at that point since he had been mathematically eliminated)

@Metal_Gear_Link since he might have missed it.
---

cloelea posted...

Le pen lost

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The nazi didn't just lose, she got god damn fucking destroyed!

I'm proud of you, France. Granted, "don't elect a nazi" is a pretty low bar to clear to be deserving of praise. But hey, you guys did it!

^The irony of that being that France remains under the thumb of Germany by staying in the EU.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

^The irony of that being that France remains under the thumb of Germany by staying in the EU.

There were several candidates that were against the EU that could have moved onto the 2 person runoff election. Anti-EU'ers voted most heavily for the person who'd never be elected by the general population and so horrifying that even some anti-EU people still would vote for the pro-EU guy just to keep her out of office.
https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder927/55265927.jpg

TheCyborgNinja posted...

^The irony of that being that France remains under the thumb of Germany by staying in the EU.

Pretty much this. They're more heavily under German influence than then they were during WWII and Macron is openly collaborating with the oppressive EU (the ads about a vote for Macron for PM being a vote for Merkel for PM were pretty on the money). Honestly, all things considered, even Le Pen was an improvement over Macron but France doesn't act rationally.
---

I was rooting for Melenchon, but he was pretty clearly out at the beginning. Don't love Macron, but very glad the nazi freak Le Pen was kept out once again. The Netherlands just did something similar by keeping out Wilders; it's good to see a push against right-wing reactionary populism.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

^The irony of that being that France remains under the thumb of Germany by staying in the EU.

@TheCyborgNinja

But this is good guy Germany

Current Germany is basically the least evil nation the world has ever had
---