|
Post by stayingupfor GermanStokie on May 4, 2017 12:48:40 GMT
Macron says EU must reform or face 'Frexit' - BBC "........ we have to face the situation, to listen to our people, and to listen to the fact that they are extremely angry today, impatient and the dysfunction of the EU is no more sustainable." "Mr Macron added that if he were to allow the EU to continue to function as it was would be a "betrayal" He's changing his tune isn't he?? Now that will make for some uncomfortable times with Merkel in the future should he win. (yes, I believe that Merkel will scrape it).
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on May 4, 2017 12:57:15 GMT
Aller en enfer le fascisme! En Marche!
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on May 4, 2017 13:02:26 GMT
The disaster in French politics cannot be avoided. Almost everyone voting for Le Pen wants to vote for Le Pen. Almost two thirds of everyone voting for Macron just doesn't want Le Pen to win. The votes for Macron because he is Macron are small. He will be the most 'un-voted for' President in history after being an unpopular economic minister for the most unpopular incumbent President. A man who runs on stage waving an EU flag after round 1 is not going to last. Believe me. Macron mentioned civil war. Watch this space. Even for this board that post is some of the biggest gash I've ever seen written. He got a higher percentage of the votes in the first round than Chirac and Jospin in the 1990s. Should he got 60% of the votes (as polls suggest, although they could be wrong of course) it will be the third-highest winning percentage in post-war French election history. Should the polls be correct (fingers crossed), Le Pen will be the second most 'un-voted' loser since 1945 in elections where there has been only two candidates (the 1958 election had three in the final round). If she gets 40% of the vote, she will be the most voted for Le Pen however. Something to show off to daddy, if he's still talking to her. Well then you clearly don't watch or read the publications I do because I've heard and read it countless times, only this morning there was a BBC radio piece from France interviewing French voters who were saying exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 4, 2017 13:05:03 GMT
The disaster in French politics cannot be avoided. Almost everyone voting for Le Pen wants to vote for Le Pen. Almost two thirds of everyone voting for Macron just doesn't want Le Pen to win. The votes for Macron because he is Macron are small. He will be the most 'un-voted for' President in history after being an unpopular economic minister for the most unpopular incumbent President. A man who runs on stage waving an EU flag after round 1 is not going to last. Believe me. Macron mentioned civil war. Watch this space. Even for this board that post is some of the biggest gash I've ever seen written. He got a higher percentage of the votes in the first round than Chirac and Jospin in the 1990s. Should he got 60% of the votes (as polls suggest, although they could be wrong of course) it will be the third-highest winning percentage in post-war French election history. Should the polls be correct (fingers crossed), Le Pen will be the second most 'un-voted' loser since 1945 in elections where there has been only two candidates (the 1958 election had three in the final round). If she gets 40% of the vote, she will be the most voted for Le Pen however. Something to show off to daddy, if he's still talking to her. I hope Le Pen loses but but I think the posters point was that in the second round people will vote Macron to stop Le Pen winning rather than because they want Macron to win.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 13:12:27 GMT
The disaster in French politics cannot be avoided. Almost everyone voting for Le Pen wants to vote for Le Pen. Almost two thirds of everyone voting for Macron just doesn't want Le Pen to win. The votes for Macron because he is Macron are small. He will be the most 'un-voted for' President in history after being an unpopular economic minister for the most unpopular incumbent President. A man who runs on stage waving an EU flag after round 1 is not going to last. Believe me. Macron mentioned civil war. Watch this space. Even for this board that post is some of the biggest gash I've ever seen written. He got a higher percentage of the votes in the first round than Chirac and Jospin in the 1990s. Should he got 60% of the votes (as polls suggest, although they could be wrong of course) it will be the third-highest winning percentage in post-war French election history. Should the polls be correct (fingers crossed), Le Pen will be the second most 'un-voted' loser since 1945 in elections where there has been only two candidates (the 1958 election had three in the final round). If she gets 40% of the vote, she will be the most voted for Le Pen however. Something to show off to daddy, if he's still talking to her. Oh I don't expect you of all people to understand the intricacies. Here's The Independent's French correspondent saying Undecided voters and 'shy FN' supporters could win the French election for Marine Le Pen Here's an opinion piece in The Guardian by Philippe Marlière who is professor of French and European politics at University College, London. He says; "Some leftwingers claim that “neoliberalism is as bad if not worse than fascism” or that “neoliberalism feeds in fascism”. Others argue that a Macron presidency will guarantee a Le Pen victory in 2022. They forget that abstention might make a Le Pen victory possible as early as 2017."
But you're right, as always. He's going to smash it and that makes him the bestest.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on May 4, 2017 13:24:57 GMT
Even for this board that post is some of the biggest gash I've ever seen written. He got a higher percentage of the votes in the first round than Chirac and Jospin in the 1990s. Should he got 60% of the votes (as polls suggest, although they could be wrong of course) it will be the third-highest winning percentage in post-war French election history. Should the polls be correct (fingers crossed), Le Pen will be the second most 'un-voted' loser since 1945 in elections where there has been only two candidates (the 1958 election had three in the final round). If she gets 40% of the vote, she will be the most voted for Le Pen however. Something to show off to daddy, if he's still talking to her. Oh I don't expect you of all people to understand the intricacies. Here's The Independent's French correspondent saying Undecided voters and 'shy FN' supporters could win the French election for Marine Le Pen Here's an opinion piece in The Guardian by Philippe Marlière who is professor of French and European politics at University College, London. He says; "Some leftwingers claim that “neoliberalism is as bad if not worse than fascism” or that “neoliberalism feeds in fascism”. Others argue that a Macron presidency will guarantee a Le Pen victory in 2022. They forget that abstention might make a Le Pen victory possible as early as 2017."
But you're right, as always. He's going to smash it and that makes him the bestest. Where have I said he will win? You'll notice any time I've mentioned the second round of voting I've used "should" or "if" - because nothing is a given in the second round. I don't particularly trust the polls, but they're the only instrument we have to predict these things. As has been proven a lot, they could well be wrong. You're the one's who's called him the "most un-voted for president", implying he will win. My point is you are talking nonsense by calling him the "most un-voted president" because a) he is not the president yet, as you have pointed out in your reply b) he is not the most 'un-voted' presidential candidate in French election history (based on first round voting) c) his current poll ratings (which I will again stress are only polls and may be wrong) put him closer to the most popular possible-president and far, far away from being the "most un-voted president". There's only so many times you can get caught talking nonsense and pretend that you're talking 'intricacies' that other people don't get. You're like a chef that's served shit on toast, and then assumes the complaints are because the customer's are not appreciating the taste.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on May 4, 2017 13:30:03 GMT
Even for this board that post is some of the biggest gash I've ever seen written. He got a higher percentage of the votes in the first round than Chirac and Jospin in the 1990s. Should he got 60% of the votes (as polls suggest, although they could be wrong of course) it will be the third-highest winning percentage in post-war French election history. Should the polls be correct (fingers crossed), Le Pen will be the second most 'un-voted' loser since 1945 in elections where there has been only two candidates (the 1958 election had three in the final round). If she gets 40% of the vote, she will be the most voted for Le Pen however. Something to show off to daddy, if he's still talking to her. I hope Le Pen loses but but I think the posters point was that in the second round people will vote Macron to stop Le Pen winning rather than because they want Macron to win. I get that, but that's part of politics. Sometimes you're only popular because your opponent is unpopular. In 2015 the Conservatives campaigned against Labour on the fact that a vote for Labour would allow the SNP to get some power in a coalition. By this logic, you could argue the Conservatives are the 'most un-voted' government in history because people were actually voting for anyone but the SNP - and that arguement would be as incorrect as the statement about Macron. If people vote for Tory because they don't want to vote for Corbyn, it won't make them an 'un-voted' winner of the election. With Le Pen and Corbyn, people should be asking why people want anyone but those candidates. In both cases it is a failure of opposition.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 13:52:29 GMT
So Barack Obama has now had enough of jet skiing with Branson and he's back at work at 4 hundred thousand dollars a speech The annual salary of the President of the United States 'earned' in one speech on Wall Street New York Times How did he leave office with a personal fortune of 12 million bucks at 400K a year?? Anyway, here's his latest gig. Millionaire President's, Wall Street and Macron. Sounds about right.....
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on May 4, 2017 14:00:00 GMT
I thought people shouldn't stick their nose into foreign elections? Or is it only bad when we can pretend the Russian's hacked it so the vote went the 'wrong' way?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 14:38:18 GMT
I thought people shouldn't stick their nose into foreign elections? Or is it only bad when we can pretend the Russian's hacked it so the vote went the 'wrong' way? Or when you can steal some right wing votes in Holland by play acting with the Turks ;-)
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on May 4, 2017 15:04:37 GMT
I thought people shouldn't stick their nose into foreign elections? Or is it only bad when we can pretend the Russian's hacked it so the vote went the 'wrong' way? Or when you can steal some right wing votes in Holland by play acting with the Turks ;-) Or when you want to do your mate a favour and try to put some pressure on a remain vote during a referendum.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 15:09:23 GMT
Or when you can steal some right wing votes in Holland by play acting with the Turks ;-) Or when you want to do your mate a favour and try to put some pressure on a yes remain during a referendum. "Back of the queue" and all that. Funny how trade with the US was the big thing then but now it's trade with EU that we rely on ??
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on May 4, 2017 15:14:57 GMT
Or when you want to do your mate a favour and try to put some pressure on a yes remain during a referendum. "Back of the queue" and all that. Funny how trade with the US was the big thing then but now it's trade with EU that we rely on ?? What was even stranger was how Obama was making these threats when he knew he wasn't even going to be in office therefore his opinion was and is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 15:16:01 GMT
I can't do the linky thing on the phone but Macron is filing a lawsuit against reports that he has offshore Caribbean bank accounts.
He's blaming websites linked to Russia for spreading lies :-)
It's like the Truman Show.
|
|
|
Post by bringmesunshine on May 4, 2017 15:31:15 GMT
I can't do the linky thing on the phone but Macron is filing a lawsuit against reports that he has offshore Caribbean bank accounts. He's blaming websites linked to Russia for spreading lies :-) It's like the Truman Show. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39802776
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on May 4, 2017 15:33:42 GMT
I can't do the linky thing on the phone but Macron is filing a lawsuit against reports that he has offshore Caribbean bank accounts. He's blaming websites linked to Russia for spreading lies :-) It's like the Truman Show. Yeah but if he indeed hasn't got one, why should he not file a lawsuit?
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on May 4, 2017 15:36:11 GMT
Or when you want to do your mate a favour and try to put some pressure on a yes remain during a referendum. "Back of the queue" and all that. Funny how trade with the US was the big thing then but now it's trade with EU that we rely on ?? The point Obama made was that IF we left, any trade agreement between the US and UK would be made after any deals between the US and the EU, he never stated we relied on their trade, he was making the point that US/UK trade would be quicker and easier to achieve via the EU than post Brexit. “And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 15:40:42 GMT
I can't do the linky thing on the phone but Macron is filing a lawsuit against reports that he has offshore Caribbean bank accounts. He's blaming websites linked to Russia for spreading lies :-) It's like the Truman Show. Yeah but if he indeed hasn't got one, why should he not file a lawsuit? Against who? Cyber 'Russians' .... again? If he's that bothered he should laugh it off, publish his tax return, ask for proof etc. Not issue some gagging order.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on May 4, 2017 15:44:12 GMT
Yeah but if he indeed hasn't got one, why should he not file a lawsuit? Against who? Cyber 'Russians' .... again? If he's that bothered he should laugh it off, p ublish his tax return, ask for proof etc. Not issue some gagging order. He's filed it against the right wing sites saying he's got the account. I don't understand, it's not a gagging order, the lawsuit will be thrown out if there is proof clearly. Is our mate Donald going to do that any time soon?
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 15:45:15 GMT
"Back of the queue" and all that. Funny how trade with the US was the big thing then but now it's trade with EU that we rely on ?? The point Obama made was that IF we left, any trade agreement between the US and UK would be made after any deals between the UK and the EU, he never stated we relied on their trade, he was making the point that US/UK trade would be quicker and easier to achieve via the EU than post Brexit. “And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”. He was leaving office. He was a lame duck President. He had no control and probably no interest in how long a UK US trade deal would take to complete. There can't be any UK US trade deal when we're in the EU. It's only US EU.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on May 4, 2017 15:49:47 GMT
The point Obama made was that IF we left, any trade agreement between the US and UK would be made after any deals between the UK and the EU, he never stated we relied on their trade, he was making the point that US/UK trade would be quicker and easier to achieve via the EU than post Brexit. “And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”. He was leaving office. He was a lame duck President. He had no control and probably no interest in how long a UK US trade deal would take to complete. There can't be any UK US trade deal when we're in the EU. It's only US EU. I just said this, if the UK was in the EU it would share the benefit of US-EU trade. Whereas Obama points out that if UK left, the deal was potentially on the table but only after non UK EU-US talks had concluded. Are you suggesting that if we were in the EU we would somehow be exempt from the benefits of an EU-US trade deal? He might be out of office, but Merkel's lobbying Trump to continue the talks, which would knock us down the list again. Obama clearly said his piece with the conviction of Clinton winning and continuing his trade deals.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 15:51:25 GMT
Against who? Cyber 'Russians' .... again? If he's that bothered he should laugh it off, p ublish his tax return, ask for proof etc. Not issue some gagging order. He's filed it against the right wing sites saying he's got the account. I don't understand, it's not a gagging order, the lawsuit will be thrown out if there is proof clearly. Is our mate Donald going to do that any time soon? "We will not hesitate to prosecute anyone for defamation who repeats this false information" That's not having a day in court proving the existence of a bank account. That's threatening anyone who's thinking of repeating the story. Gagged.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on May 4, 2017 15:52:57 GMT
He's filed it against the right wing sites saying he's got the account. I don't understand, it's not a gagging order, the lawsuit will be thrown out if there is proof clearly. Is our mate Donald going to do that any time soon? "We will not hesitate to prosecute anyone for defamation who repeats this false information" That's not having a day in court proving the existence of a bank account. That's threatening anyone who's thinking of repeating the story. Gagged. If a story is untrue, and if it's continually repeated despite it being untrue, and such disinformation tarnishes the reputation of an individual, how is that not potentially slanderous? A threat of legal action is not a gagging order. It's a threat of legal action. If the story is true, the truth will out. If it's untrue, they have no choice but to retract the statement. That's how defamation works.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 4, 2017 15:54:35 GMT
Sign of the times that we are even discussing whether a mainstream centrist will defeat a fascist, even one as outwardly cuddly as Marine Le Pen.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 17:29:47 GMT
He was leaving office. He was a lame duck President. He had no control and probably no interest in how long a UK US trade deal would take to complete. There can't be any UK US trade deal when we're in the EU. It's only US EU. I just said this, if the UK was in the EU it would share the benefit of US-EU trade. Whereas Obama points out that if UK left, the deal was potentially on the table but only after non UK EU-US talks had concluded. Are you suggesting that if we were in the EU we would somehow be exempt from the benefits of an EU-US trade deal? He might be out of office, but Merkel's lobbying Trump to continue the talks, which would knock us down the list again. Obama clearly said his piece with the conviction of Clinton winning and continuing his trade deals. Yes that was his threat. "only after" or "back of the queue". What queue? How many other countries? Just the EU and the UK or were we at the back of a longer queue? Nobody knows, he couldn't put any reasoning behind his his aggressive narrative and he had no control over whether it could become fact. He was an incumbent Head of State, albeit outgoing, and he appeared on State sponsored TV of another Sovereign State telling their citizens it would be bad for them to vote to Leave the EU. That's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 17:34:24 GMT
"We will not hesitate to prosecute anyone for defamation who repeats this false information" That's not having a day in court proving the existence of a bank account. That's threatening anyone who's thinking of repeating the story. Gagged. If a story is untrue, and if it's continually repeated despite it being untrue, and such disinformation tarnishes the reputation of an individual, how is that not potentially slanderous? A threat of legal action is not a gagging order. It's a threat of legal action. If the story is true, the truth will out. If it's untrue, they have no choice but to retract the statement. That's how defamation works. Why threaten legal action? Just do it if it is libelous.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on May 4, 2017 17:42:48 GMT
If a story is untrue, and if it's continually repeated despite it being untrue, and such disinformation tarnishes the reputation of an individual, how is that not potentially slanderous? A threat of legal action is not a gagging order. It's a threat of legal action. If the story is true, the truth will out. If it's untrue, they have no choice but to retract the statement. That's how defamation works. Why threaten legal action? Just do it if it is libelous. He has! Prosecutors have opened investigations. He's saying if it's repeated, they can expect similar investigations, that's the threat of legal action, and prosecutors are launching investigations into the existing claims. You can do both simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on May 4, 2017 17:46:47 GMT
I just said this, if the UK was in the EU it would share the benefit of US-EU trade. Whereas Obama points out that if UK left, the deal was potentially on the table but only after non UK EU-US talks had concluded. Are you suggesting that if we were in the EU we would somehow be exempt from the benefits of an EU-US trade deal? He might be out of office, but Merkel's lobbying Trump to continue the talks, which would knock us down the list again. Obama clearly said his piece with the conviction of Clinton winning and continuing his trade deals. Yes that was his threat. "only after" or "back of the queue". What queue? How many other countries? Just the EU and the UK or were we at the back of a longer queue? Nobody knows, he couldn't put any reasoning behind his his aggressive narrative and he had no control over whether it could become fact. He was an incumbent Head of State, albeit outgoing, and he appeared on State sponsored TV of another Sovereign State telling their citizens it would be bad for them to vote to Leave the EU. That's a fact. Even if was just the EU, that's a sizable queue, that's legislation to run past 27 member states in the Council, then majority in EU parliament and then to pass through both houses of congress in the US. A one trading bloc queue, is a pretty big queue. A US-EU trade deal has been in the making for 28 years, you can't do it overnight.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 4, 2017 17:58:55 GMT
Why threaten legal action? Just do it if it is libelous. He has! Prosecutors have opened investigations. He's saying if it's repeated, they can expect similar investigations, that's the threat of legal action, and prosecutors are launching investigations into the existing claims. You can do both simultaneously. Righto. Be sure to keep an eye on that court case. Let me know how it goes
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on May 4, 2017 18:01:52 GMT
He has! Prosecutors have opened investigations. He's saying if it's repeated, they can expect similar investigations, that's the threat of legal action, and prosecutors are launching investigations into the existing claims. You can do both simultaneously. Righto. Be sure to keep an eye on that court case. Let me know how it goes With pleasure, you let me know how Jean Francois Jalkh's goes in his efforts to repudiate claims he challenged the use of zyklon B in the Holocaust.
|
|