French presidential primaries

[Minoa]

So who is most likely to win in France? Doesn't seem like any of you have very good options there.

Probably Macron, much less likely Le Pen, others have almost zero chances.
My opinion: whoever wins, Macron or Le Pen, France lose.

France only loses if Le Pen wins, because of the alt-right (at this stage, Pepe may no longer be salvageable for some time despite the best efforts of the ADL). For others, it would be naive to jump to conclusions.

[Aelex]

Macron, the least dangerous in my opinion. Stay away from Marine Le Pen, because of the hatred running through the party itself. This doesn't seem to do any good for FN. A bit cautious about Mélenchon. Fillon, I’m done with.

Macron vs. Mélenchon in the run-off might soothe my fears a lot.

What Le Pen said this weekend was disgusting. It takes her dangerously close to her father's minimization of the Holocaust.

Yeah. No.
She was 100 fucking percent right and the reaction of the left to her merely repeating what EVERYONE has been saying since the liberation is actually more telling about the pettiness of it than about her alleged racism.
France la République wasn't responsible for the Vel d'hiv nor was it responsible for the rest of the collaboration.
France l'immortelle was fighting abroad with the rest of the Allies to liberate the Homeland that had been taken over by enemies of the Nation.
Vichy was an illegitimate government resulting from an illegal coup made by traitors to the fatherland and is therefore not in any way related to France la libre who never stopped to struggle against Nazism.

If people are to blame for the atrocities that were committed, it's the Vichyists and collaborationists, not the State and all its citizens.

[Aelex]

France only loses if Le Pen wins, because of the alt-right (at this stage, Pepe may no longer be salvageable for some time despite the best efforts of the ADL). For others, it would be naive to jump to conclusions.

The alt-right doesn't exist in France, stop trying to force Anglo-Saxon cultural and political phenomenon to the French culture. Not only is it stupid but unsurprisingly it doesn't work.

As for pepe, it's a fucking meme. No need to rage so much over a joke.

Also, no. France only lose if Macon wins. This spineless scum is what is worst with our system and the very possibility of having him president makes me want to puke.

[Maichuko]

Can't Stenchon The Mélenchon!
Btw, have you tried "Fiscal Kombat"?
http://www.fiscalkombat.fr/

I don't understand what they were saying but that was hilarious.

[Irona]

France only loses if Le Pen wins, because of the alt-right (at this stage, Pepe may no longer be salvageable for some time despite the best efforts of the ADL). For others, it would be naive to jump to conclusions.

The alt-right doesn't exist in France, stop trying to force Anglo-Saxon cultural and political phenomenon to the French culture. Not only is it stupid but unsurprisingly it doesn't work.

As for pepe, it's a fucking meme. No need to rage so much over a joke.

Also, no. France only lose if Macon wins. This spineless scum is what is worst with our system and the very possibility of having him president makes me want to puke.

If France leaves the Euro you really will be in the shitter. You can't even have printing presses for your new currency till you officially leave - at which point France is screwed.

[Minoa]

The alt-right doesn't exist in France, stop trying to force Anglo-Saxon cultural and political phenomenon to the French culture. Not only is it stupid but unsurprisingly it doesn't work.

As for pepe, it's a fucking meme. No need to rage so much over a joke.

Also, no. France only lose if Macon wins. This spineless scum is what is worst with our system and the very possibility of having him president makes me want to puke.

If France leaves the Euro you really will be in the shitter. You can't even have printing presses for your new currency till you officially leave - at which point France is screwed.

My opposition to Le Pen is largely based on genuine concerns regarding racial hatred. I do not mind Mélenchon but I would keep the EU even if it means reforming it for the better. As I said, no problems criticising globalism, but it is better to focus on tweaking it rather than shun it entirely since doing so will make travelling the world a costly luxury.

EDIT: Wordiness tweaked.

[Korica]

I personally think Mélenchon is least worse candidate. However I think Le Pen is going to win the election.

[Chestaan]

The Le Pen/Melenchon horseshoe idea falls apart pretty easily if you watch any of the debates. He's getting in more jabs at her than any other candidate.

Its the same bull that libs tried to peddle in the US election, saying that Sanders and Trump were similar. It's a narrative that a fourth grader would think up because they see both described as "anti-establishment" and think the reasons for and manifestations of that descriptor are the same or similar for both.

Melenchon's barbs against her are generally on immigration and social issues. There's no horseshoe but they have quite a few similarities in some areas.

Yes, they have similarities in the less controversial areas perhaps. Let's be honest here, the worst thing about Le Pen isn't her economic policy or the fact that she criticises the EU. It's her being a racist. Or put another way, the worst things about her are her stances on immigration and social issues.

[Proctopeo]

The alt-right doesn't exist in France, stop trying to force Anglo-Saxon cultural and political phenomenon to the French culture. Not only is it stupid but unsurprisingly it doesn't work.

As for pepe, it's a fucking meme. No need to rage so much over a joke.

Also, no. France only lose if Macon wins. This spineless scum is what is worst with our system and the very possibility of having him president makes me want to puke.

If France leaves the Euro you really will be in the shitter. You can't even have printing presses for your new currency till you officially leave - at which point France is screwed.

Really?
Even if that is true, you still can. Just tell the EU to sod off if they inquire about it.

[Gim]

I personally think Mélenchon is least worse candidate. However I think Le Pen is going to win the election.

Unfortunately.

[Irona]

If France leaves the Euro you really will be in the shitter. You can't even have printing presses for your new currency till you officially leave - at which point France is screwed.

Really?
Even if that is true, you still can. Just tell the EU to sod off if they inquire about it.

https://youtu.be/N6qSaH1n6wk?t=108

Watch these three minutes - essentially it destroy's the value of your currency even before it's printed. If you ignore the EU then you break the laws that you signed. Do that and people (Importantly investors) lose confidence in your government.

[Aelex]

If France leaves the Euro you really will be in the shitter. You can't even have printing presses for your new currency till you officially leave - at which point France is screwed.

Yeah, yeah, we had that whole "THE GATE OF HELL WILL OPEN AND SWALLOW YOUR COUNTRY WHOLE!" already during the Brexit, no one bought it then and no one is buying it now.
As for E.U's laws, they are about as binding as international ones so we will just say "Yes yes" and do what we need to do anyway like we've been doing already.
And, really, you should not worry about the state of France after it leaves the E.U but rather about the state of the E.U after France leaves. :^)

[Aelex]

My opposition to Le Pen is largely based on genuine concerns regarding racial hatred. I do not mind Mélenchon but I would keep the EU even if it means reforming it for the better. As I said, no problems criticising globalism, but it is better to focus on tweaking it rather than shun it entirely since doing so will make travelling the world a costly luxury.

EDIT: Wordiness tweaked.

Racial hatred is the fucking least of our concern and is more likely to increase with """progressives""" shills like Macron who want people to feel ashamed for being French than with nationalists like Le Pen who're ready to accept anyone willing to assimilate.
As for the E.U, reforming it would be harder than actually just destroying it and rebuilding what need to be rebuilt from scratch, honestly.
And if it cost a little more to bourgeasses to "travel the world" well to fucking bad but I prefer my nation's wellbeing to their fee-fees and already filled enough wallet.

[Neu Leonstein]

France la République wasn't responsible for the Vel d'hiv nor was it responsible for the rest of the collaboration.
France l'immortelle was fighting abroad with the rest of the Allies to liberate the Homeland that had been taken over by enemies of the Nation.
Vichy was an illegitimate government resulting from an illegal coup made by traitors to the fatherland and is therefore not in any way related to France la libre who never stopped to struggle against Nazism.

If people are to blame for the atrocities that were committed, it's the Vichyists and collaborationists, not the State and all its citizens.

You have a weird understanding of what a nation is. To my knowledge the population of France wasn't replaced with Free French fighters imported straight from Africa in 1944/45. By your logic the responsibility for German crimes during Nazi rule was extinguished when its government was replaced by a different one.

And if it cost a little more to bourgeasses to "travel the world" well to fucking bad but I prefer my nation's wellbeing to their fee-fees and already filled enough wallet.

The modern nationalist never really seems to understand that their vision of their nation is not the only valid vision out there. Some people want France to be an open and free society that engages with the world, where foreigners are welcome and where French people can go and participate in a global community if they want to. That is not wrong. This accusation you throw around is the same as it was/is with Brexit: people with that vision for their country are somehow pronounced unpatriotic, as though they are violating the one objectively correct way to be a patriot.

But there isn't one.

[Aelex]

You have a weird understanding of what a nation is. To my knowledge the population of France wasn't replaced with Free French fighters imported straight from Africa in 1944/45. By your logic the responsibility for German crimes during Nazi rule was extinguished when its government was replaced by a different one.

And you seems to have none at all. :^)
Anyway, this point is so retarded I'm actually quite baffled you're even trying to make it. So lemme answer you quite clearly. No, the situation in France where the legitimate government was toppled and replaced by a puppet one favourable to the Nazis as the result of losing the Battle of France and the one in Germany were the Nazis were legally elected into power isn't quite exactly the same (nor even remotely), as most not so eager to try to strawman their adversor's position would have known, and thus your missing the point as usual.

France continued to fight all the way until victory during WW2. What Nazis' puppets did at that time isn't in any way, shape or form related to France for Vichy was an unlegitimate government since its inception and never actually represented France. Therefore, blaming France for Vichy actions is utterly stupid and nonsensical.

The modern nationalist never really seems to understand that their vision of their nation is not the only valid vision out there. Some people want France to be an open and free society that engages with the world, where foreigners are welcome and where French people can go and participate in a global community if they want to. That is not wrong. This accusation you throw around is the same as it was/is with Brexit: people with that vision for their country are somehow pronounced unpatriotic, as though they are violating the one objectively correct way to be a patriot.

But there isn't one.

>"People who want their country to forsake its culture, be ashamed of its history and adopt multiculturalism so that foreigners don't have to bother assimilating tots can be patriot, after all there isn't only one way!"
lol, yeah, no.
Sure, there isn't only one way to be a patriot. But what you describe can not, by any possible criteria, be described as being in any way close to being patriotic.

[Neu Leonstein]

And you seems to have none at all. :^)

Put on your thinking cap and try again.

Anyway, this point is so retarded I'm actually quite baffled you're even trying to make it. So lemme answer you quite clearly. No, the situation in France where the legitimate government was toppled and replaced by a puppet one favourable to the Nazis as the result of losing the Battle of France and the one in Germany were the Nazis were legally elected into power isn't quite exactly the same (nor even remotely), as most not so eager to try to strawman their adversor's position would have known, and thus your missing the point as usual.

France continued to fight all the way until victory during WW2. What Nazis' puppets did at that time isn't in any way, shape or form related to France for Vichy was an unlegitimate government since its inception and never actually represented France. Therefore, blaming France for Vichy actions is utterly stupid and nonsensical.

I'm not talking about the legal differences, or the "legitimacy" you, or anyone else, might assign to the government on paper. I'm talking about the actual people who lived there before and after 1945. The same policemen, the same paper pushers, the same newspaper editors and the same uninterested bystanders. What happened was that French people rounded up other French people to be sent to their deaths, and that a whole lot of other French people didn't do anything about it.

Sure, some other French people did try to do something about it. And sure, in your retelling afterwards, those are the legitimate French people, and all the others aren't. But if that's what you're hung up on, that just demonstrates that you didn't get what the argument is actually about.

>"People who want their country to forsake its culture, be ashamed of its history and adopt multiculturalism so that foreigners don't have to bother assimilating tots can be patriot, after all there isn't only one way!"
lol, yeah, no.
Sure, there isn't only one way to be a patriot. But what you describe can not, by any possible criteria, be described as being in any way close to being patriotic.

This is what is known as a straw man argument. Don't do it.

[Major-Tom]

I personally think Mélenchon is least worse candidate. However I think Le Pen is going to win the election.

Melenchon is ridiculous. His support for a "100% tax" on earners making more than 350,000 Euros a year is nothing short of ludicrous, as is his populistic vaguely isolationist message. His support for heavier protectionism will only act as a detriment to the French economy, as will his heavy support of shorter working hours. France desperately needs labour reform, and he won't deliver.

I'd vote for almost anyone over Melenchon, frankly..

[Aelex]

Put on your thinking cap and try again.

"You disagree with me therefore you're unable to think!!!!1!!!11!!1!1"

I'm not talking about the legal differences, or the "legitimacy" you, or anyone else, might assign to the government on paper. I'm talking about the actual people who lived there before and after 1945. The same policemen, the same paper pushers, the same newspaper editors and the same uninterested bystanders. What happened was that French people rounded up other French people to be sent to their deaths, and that a whole lot of other French people didn't do anything about it.

Sure, some other French people did try to do something about it. And sure, in your retelling afterwards, those are the legitimate French people, and all the others aren't. But if that's what you're hung up on, that just demonstrates that you didn't get what the argument is actually about.

The argument is and always was on France, the State, being supposedly responsible for those actions and thus needing to apologize for them. We are, and have been talking about the responsibility of the Nation as a whole, and not of part of the citizens who make it up, therefore you talking about people who committed crimes and trying to assign blame to the Nation because of their actions is utterly off subject (and rather stupid, honestly). You already tried to move the goalposts from France to citizens a first time and I already called you out on it but it seems you aren't even trying to hide your intellectual dishonesty anymore and are simply stubbornly repeating the same thing despite having been pointed out already.

Now, it's quite clear you're just willfully misinterpreting my point so lemme clarify it even more so you can't play dumb about it anymore :

Is France, the Nation, responsible from the crimes of Vichy? No, for Vichy wasn't the Nation, which was still fighting the war, but an unlegitimate government puppeted by foreigners.
Therefore who is responsible for the crimes of Vichy? It's the individuals who committed those crimes and them alone for they acted not in the name of France (in which case France could have been blamed) but of an illegal body.

Arguing that because these representatives of an illegitimate body that had usurped power and that France was at war with committed crimes, France should apologize for them as if it was somehow related in any way, shape or form to their actions is utterly illogical if not even insulting.

This is what is known as a straw man argument. Don't do it.

This is what is known as whining about fallacy to try to hide being called out on your bullshit. Don't do it.

[Neu Leonstein]

"You disagree with me therefore you're unable to think!!!!1!!!11!!1!1"

I didn't say you couldn't think, I think you probably could. You just didn't, because you seem to assume that I don't understand what you're saying and therefore don't take the time to think how what I am saying might be relevant to your argument.

The argument is and always was on France, the State, being supposedly responsible for those actions and thus needing to apologize for them. We are, and have been talking about the responsibility of the Nation as a whole, and not of part of the citizens who make it up, therefore you talking about people who committed crimes and trying to assign blame to the Nation because of their actions is utterly off subject (and rather stupid, honestly).

So my objections here are twofold. Here's the first: Even if we were to ignore the nature of what a nation is, as discussed further below, then the status of the Vichy government as French state has been decided already. The key events to think about for our purposes are probably Chirac's speech in '95, and then the '09 decision by the Conseil d'Etat. Neither seem to be of the impression that there was only one French state, as represented by Free France, and that Vichy was something else entirely. Instead, they both imply that both represented the French state in some fashion to such a degree that the modern French state is responsible for things that the Vichy state did in the name of France.

But that's not an argument that's particularly interesting for anyone who isn't a legal nerd, so let me move on...

You already tried to move the goalposts from France to citizens a first time and I already called you out on it but it seems you aren't even trying to hide your intellectual dishonesty anymore and are simply stubbornly repeating the same thing despite having been pointed out already.

I'm not moving the goalposts. Chirac used very similar language in his speech. Of course who the people were is relevant.

Imagine for a minute that Chirac and the Conseil d'Etat are wrong though, and actually the modern French state is unrelated to the Vichy state. What would that change? The French nation as a society is a community made up of individual people who make choices that are (partially) the result of and reflect on French society as a whole. The policeman who manhandled the citizen into a paddy wagon was a part of French society. He did what he did as a representative of that society and could do it because he was that representative, holding a position of authority in it. He did it with the (at a minimum) tacit consent of other members of French society around him. Clearly whatever happened is an issue that affects French society as a whole. When you want to talk about who the French are and what the French do, you cannot ignore the fact that these were French people and this is something French people did. You cannot then have any person or entity that pretends to represent or speak for the French people that ignores it either.

Chirac could have made the speech and avoided the word "state" in it and replaced it with "society". It wouldn't have been wrong. Nor would its implications have been different in any meaningful way. The French state is itself just a body that represents its society - the issues of one are the issues of the other. There is nothing to be gained by clinging to the legal separation of it... certainly not when you're talking about major questions of moral responsibility that could still be relevant decades later.

Now, it's quite clear you're just willfully misinterpreting my point so lemme clarify it even more so you can't play dumb about it anymore :

I hope the above clarifies sufficiently. I am actually aware of your point. It just hasn't convinced me. Even what I wrote above actually makes the issue sound more complicated than it really is. French people deported Jews on orders of a French government, while claiming to represent French society and with the tacit, and sometimes explicit, assent of the French communities in which all of this was happening. Those are the facts that have moral implications.

Arguing that because these representatives of an illegitimate body that had usurped power and that France was at war with committed crimes, France should apologize for them as if it was somehow related in any way, shape or form to their actions is utterly illogical if not even insulting.

I think this "insulting" line is maybe the most telling out of the whole lot. It's uncomfortable to acknowledge that there were a great many people who were not heroes. Many people were villains, and the vast majority were neither and so did nothing to stop what was happening. This is always the case, in any society, in France, in Poland, in Russia and even in Germany. But when what happened is bad enough, then it is a moral necessity to acknowledge it explicitly. That's not insulting, that's just being realistic about the fact that a monstrous crime was committed and most people did nothing.

This is what is known as whining about fallacy to try to hide being called out on your bullshit. Don't do it.

I'm not sure what you're aiming for here. Either you want to have a discussion about something, or you don't. If not, just say so and we'll leave it. If you do, then who do you hope to impress by acting like you're still in high school?

[Theodorex]

I personally think Mélenchon is least worse candidate. However I think Le Pen is going to win the election.

Melenchon is ridiculous. His support for a "100% tax" on earners making more than 350,000 Euros a year is nothing short of ludicrous, as is his populistic vaguely isolationist message. His support for heavier protectionism will only act as a detriment to the French economy, as will his heavy support of shorter working hours. France desperately needs labour reform, and he won't deliver.

I'd vote for almost anyone over Melenchon, frankly..

Yes because you are a neoliberal who always says that can't do this or can't do that because bad for economy. Most of the time when capitalism was flourishing all countries used heavy protectionism, It didn't collapse then. France dould survive with 20 hour work week or even 10. France could survive without euro or EU like It did for hundreds of years before.

Don't believe these fear mongerers. The voters know what France needs.

[Geilinor]

Melenchon is ridiculous. His support for a "100% tax" on earners making more than 350,000 Euros a year is nothing short of ludicrous, as is his populistic vaguely isolationist message. His support for heavier protectionism will only act as a detriment to the French economy, as will his heavy support of shorter working hours. France desperately needs labour reform, and he won't deliver.

I'd vote for almost anyone over Melenchon, frankly..

Yes because you are a neoliberal who always says that can't do this or can't do that because bad for economy. Most of the time when capitalism was flourishing all countries used heavy protectionism, It didn't collapse then. France dould survive with 20 hour work week or even 10. France could survive without euro or EU like It did for hundreds of years before.

Don't believe these fear mongerers. The voters know what France needs.

Haha no it can't. No country could do that.

[Major-Tom]

Melenchon is ridiculous. His support for a "100% tax" on earners making more than 350,000 Euros a year is nothing short of ludicrous, as is his populistic vaguely isolationist message. His support for heavier protectionism will only act as a detriment to the French economy, as will his heavy support of shorter working hours. France desperately needs labour reform, and he won't deliver.

I'd vote for almost anyone over Melenchon, frankly..

Yes because you are a neoliberal who always says that can't do this or can't do that because bad for economy. Most of the time when capitalism was flourishing all countries used heavy protectionism, It didn't collapse then. France dould survive with 20 hour work week or even 10. France could survive without euro or EU like It did for hundreds of years before.

Don't believe these fear mongerers. The voters know what France needs.

(1. Not a neoliberal. Pretty supportive of economic policies that work.

10 hour work week? What does that do to productivity? That question alone should prove the whole idea intellectually bankrupt.

19% of the voters support Mélenchon. 81% do not. The voters, in large part, know Mélenchon is a bad idea. Granted, LePen is a bad idea, and to some extent, so are Fillon, Hamon, and Macron. So the voters either made poor choices or are being offered poor choices...

[New Werpland]

Melenchon is ridiculous. His support for a "100% tax" on earners making more than 350,000 Euros a year is nothing short of ludicrous, as is his populistic vaguely isolationist message. His support for heavier protectionism will only act as a detriment to the French economy, as will his heavy support of shorter working hours. France desperately needs labour reform, and he won't deliver.

I'd vote for almost anyone over Melenchon, frankly..

Yes because you are a neoliberal who always says that can't do this or can't do that because bad for economy. Most of the time when capitalism was flourishing all countries used heavy protectionism, It didn't collapse then. France dould survive with 20 hour work week or even 10. France could survive without euro or EU like It did for hundreds of years before.

Don't believe these fear mongerers. The voters know what France needs.

It almost did.

[Saint-Thor]

Imagine for a minute that Chirac and the Conseil d'Etat are wrong though, and actually the modern French state is unrelated to the Vichy state. What would that change? The French nation as a society is a community made up of individual people who make choices that are (partially) the result of and reflect on French society as a whole. The policeman who manhandled the citizen into a paddy wagon was a part of French society. He did what he did as a representative of that society and could do it because he was that representative, holding a position of authority in it. He did it with the (at a minimum) tacit consent of other members of French society around him. Clearly whatever happened is an issue that affects French society as a whole. When you want to talk about who the French are and what the French do, you cannot ignore the fact that these were French people and this is something French people did. You cannot then have any person or entity that pretends to represent or speak for the French people that ignores it either.

There were French people collaborating with the nazis during the occupation, this is not subject to debate. However it's pretty hard to admit that the Vichy regime represented the continuity of the French governement after 1940. When you considered it was established in a context of war, following a defeat, not elected, illegitimate and in competition with another "governement", la France Libre. So I can somehow understand why some French don't feel they should take the blame for a puppet governement controlled by a foreign power. Again, I don't want to try to minimise the collaboration they had there but at least let's try to be fair.

I think this "insulting" line is maybe the most telling out of the whole lot. It's uncomfortable to acknowledge that there were a great many people who were not heroes. Many people were villains, and the vast majority were neither and so did nothing to stop what was happening. This is always the case, in any society, in France, in Poland, in Russia and even in Germany. But when what happened is bad enough, then it is a moral necessity to acknowledge it explicitly. That's not insulting, that's just being realistic about the fact that a monstrous crime was committed and most people did nothing.

Most people did nothing? Are you serious? 75% of the Jewish population in France present in 1940 remained in France and survived. How? Because they were hidden and protected by the French population, at their own risk and peril. The occupation lasted roughly four years and they managed for four years to protect them. You make it sounds like some form of guilt by association you see? So no, it doesn't represent the society. Not even close.

[MERIZoC]

Yes because you are a neoliberal who always says that can't do this or can't do that because bad for economy. Most of the time when capitalism was flourishing all countries used heavy protectionism, It didn't collapse then. France dould survive with 20 hour work week or even 10. France could survive without euro or EU like It did for hundreds of years before.

Don't believe these fear mongerers. The voters know what France needs.

(1. Not a neoliberal. Pretty supportive of economic policies that work.

10 hour work week? What does that do to productivity? That question alone should prove the whole idea intellectually bankrupt.

19% of the voters support Mélenchon. 81% do not. The voters, in large part, know Mélenchon is a bad idea. Granted, LePen is a bad idea, and to some extent, so are Fillon, Hamon, and Macron. So the voters either made poor choices or are being offered poor choices...

This is a terribly simplistic analysis. Melenchon is the most popular by approval rating candidate running. Obviously nobody is going to be winning a majority of the votes in the first round. That doesn't mean they're largely disliked.
https://www.lesechos.fr/elections/jean-luc-melenchon/0211951014748-popularite-melenchon-devient-la-personnalite-politique-preferee-des-francais-2078062.php#xtor=CS1-25
https://www.ft.com/content/06776e2e-1902-11e7-a53d-df09f373be87