What's new

French Presidential and Legislative Elections 2017-News and Updates

Latest polling averages:

French Presidential Election 2017.png


https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-french-election/
 
If Lepen is not in Second round... THen it will be a Melonchon vs Macron... and It's almost win for Melonchon... Why? Lepen voters will mostly vote for Melonchon.
This is retarded......

Anyway according to most of the polls Le Pen still leads Macron by 0.5-1 point. Fillon and Melenchon are battling for 3rd spot......most polls say Fillon narrowly ahead by 0.5-1 point.

Le Pen is still the safest bet to go to the second round.
 
This is retarded......

Anyway according to most of the polls Le Pen still leads Macron by 0.5-1 point. Fillon and Melenchon are battling for 3rd spot......most polls say Fillon narrowly ahead by 0.5-1 point.

Le Pen is still the safest bet to go to the second round.

I really hope Mélenchon's surge in polls is just hype and nothing will really materialize the day of the votes. He also surged days before the elections and finally got way less than he was given by the polls.

I hope my fellow citizens are not crazy enough to elect a communist in disguize who will lead France to ruins,with an unrealistic project that will see spendings hikes of €270bn and nearly €120bn of increase of taxes when France is already among the most taxed country and people have enough of paying so much taxes. This guy will make flee the foreign groups and the foreign investments,will make flee the rich who will invest their money elsewhere...

Sorry,but I hardly believe the French,after 5 years of Hollandia turned far left-nearly communists.
 
I really hope Mélenchon's surge in polls is just hype and nothing will really materialize the day of the votes. He also surged days before the elections and finally got way less than he was given by the polls.


Mélenchon vs. Le Pen would be terrible... :wacko:
 
Mélenchon vs. Le Pen would be terrible... :wacko:

The far right Marine Le Pen vs the far left version of MLP. Nothing worse could ever happen. Be sure that on the 7th of May,I would go visiting a park or a zoo,something like that,rather than wasting my time in a polling station for choosing one of the two.
 
I really hope Mélenchon's surge in polls is just hype and nothing will really materialize the day of the votes. He also surged days before the elections and finally got way less than he was given by the polls.

I hope my fellow citizens are not crazy enough to elect a communist in disguize who will lead France to ruins,with an unrealistic project that will see spendings hikes of €270bn and nearly €120bn of increase of taxes when France is already among the most taxed country and people have enough of paying so much taxes. This guy will make flee the foreign groups and the foreign investments,will make flee the rich who will invest their money elsewhere...

Sorry,but I hardly believe the French,after 5 years of Hollandia turned far left-nearly communists.
The only way Melenchon can get to the second round is Hamon retires and backs Melenchon. This way he might even Beat Le Pen in the finals. But chance of this happening is very very low.

Although I read Melenchon has been outstanding in the debates. Can you tell how did the debates go so far? And how much impact they had on the voters?
 
This is retarded......

Anyway according to most of the polls Le Pen still leads Macron by 0.5-1 point. Fillon and Melenchon are battling for 3rd spot......most polls say Fillon narrowly ahead by 0.5-1 point.

Le Pen is still the safest bet to go to the second round.
As you may see iI used "IF"...
 
The only way Melenchon can get to the second round is Hamon retires and backs Melenchon. This way he might even Beat Le Pen in the finals. But chance of this happening is very very low.

Although I read Melenchon has been outstanding in the debates. Can you tell how did the debates go so far? And how much impact they had on the voters?

Despite the two debates,the number of undecisive people still remains stable,at 40%. This is the first time the number of undecisive voters is so high just days before the first round. The debates didn't seem to change the situation,and those voters will be the one allowing any of the main candidates to get to the second round,the reason they are 'hunting' them and trying to convince them.

With many who will choose who they'll vote for at the last minute or those that will also change their thoughts at the last minute,this election is nearly unpredictable. There might be surprises.
 
I hate Capitalism just as much as i hate Socialism (Marxist Socialism and its various derivatives, to be specific).
What do you support then? Being a 'centrist' these days just means supporting Capitalism.

I am not a Marxist - his materialism and views on religion were certainly misguided. But he had a point when it came to his critique of Capitalism. Same with Lenin.

I support what can be called 'Islamic Economics', but it's much easier to refer to it as 'Interest-free non-Materialistic Market Socialism' lest I incur the wrath of the ubiquitous Internet Secular Atheist Brigade.
Usually by "Socialism" most people imply Marxist Socialism in most cases nowadays at least anyway. The irony of it all is that the formulators of Marxism (or Communism or socialism, whichever name you prefer) were Capitalist Jews :lol:, which explains why Marxism/socialism never worked and never will work. Though it has only worked in the mass starvation of the very workers it claims to be the savior of (that alone says a lot about the founders of such a vile ideology) .
Marx was barely a Jew. He did not identify himself as a Jew, or practice Judaism; he was an atheist. But that is irrelevant.

What do you think 'socialism', or 'marxist socialism' actually means? It simply means that whoever works gets the full value of his produce, instead of all the profits going to a small subset of the population simply because they 'own' the factory/shop/farm.

There is a massive misconception as to what Socialism actually means - most people think it means "the Government owns everything". That's really not what it means. It means the workers control the means of production. If the workers don't control the means of production, that's not Socialism.

One does not need an argument to prove Communism is a failure. It has already proven that on its own over and over again.

@Psychic @Nilgiri @The Sandman
Really? Engels' family wasn't really that wealthy and Marx had several jobs working for various newspapers - but that is completely irrelevant - what is relevant is what he actually said.

Have you ever thought why he was considered to be a great economic thinker? Because he had a point. He had several points. His critique of Capitalism remains valid to this day. The inherent contradictions of Capitalism are very real and very tangible - that's why there's some sort of recession or depression every few years. That's why the USA has been at war for 90% of its existence.

The Soviet Union collapsed because it had turned into a State-Capitalist dictatorship. And even then, they didn't fail that badly at all.

Transforming a failing feudal state such as Tsarist Russia into a global superpower despite being invaded three times by powerful industrial nations and surviving two World Wars within a span of less than 50 years is not really a failure.

Most claims about mass starvation and the "millions, billions, trillions" that 'evil Communism' has killed tend to be exaggerated and ignorant of history. Before the October Revolution, Russians under the Tsar suffered from extreme starvation due to poor governance and WW1 only made it worse. Russia's infrastructure, aside from a few railways, was virtually nonexistent. Most incidences of starvation that are attributed to Communism would have definitely occurred under Capitalism or any other economic system under those circumstances.

There was no starvation in the Soviet Union after 1947, after they recovered from WW2.

And let me be clear - Stalinism was not socialism, it was effectively State Capitalism; and I am no fan of the Soviet Union's expansionism and 'imperialism-lite'. That is what destroyed them.

I'd recommend the last 15 minutes of this lecture by an actual Professor of Economics and History for a much better explanation.

Oh and this article is worth reading as a summary of Iqbal's views on Socialism and the Islamic Economics I was talking about: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/gk-magazine/iqbal-karl-marx-and-socialism/90927.html
Even today you have wealthy Jews like Bernie Sanders duping the dumb masses into believing their false promises whilst themselves living within the safe confines of their gated upper class communities away from all of the poverty stricken drudges of society whom they claim to be champions of.
So you'd rather have a wealthy Christian (and Zionist) like Hillary Clinton duping the dumb masses into believing the false promises of Capitalism?

At least Bernie hasn't supported bombing a dozen countries and doesn't intend to bomb any either.

Besides, he is not a 'wealthy Jew' just because he bought a second home after being in public office for 35 years- the wealth of actual 'wealthy Jews' is well beyond that.

And Bernie is barely left, never mind a full-blown socialist. He is a centrist by global standards and his positions are considered conservative in parts of Europe - his main platform is Nationalised Healthcare and Higher Education; most European countries already have that.
The people who push this ideology don't practice it themselves. That alone is a red flag in itself.
I see what you did there with the 'red flag' :lol:.

It is incredibly difficult to 'practice' socialism in a capitalist system. It's not some kind of religion. Many people actually do practice some of its principles; ever heard of worker co-ops? They're getting quite popular in Spain and South America. And many otherwise capitalist countries have incorporated Socialist principles - Britain and most of Europe has a National Health Service, funded by everyone, used by everyone.
 

I've read this on internet ;

The "hidden voters"
There has been a lot of talk in this election about the "hidden vote" (le vote caché), meaning people who have not revealed their true intentions to the pollsters or more to the point not even to themselves.

And Fillon's team is convinced that many of their actual voters aren't saying it out loud, presumably because they don't want to be associated with a scandal-ridden candidate.

"People don't necessarily want to say that they're going to vote for Fillon, even if it's a sure thing," Republican MP Valérie Boyer told BFM TV recently.

Ifop Pollster Jerome Fourquet, who joined joined Lecerf and Opinion Way's Frédéric Micheau for a grilling by the Anglo American Press Association of Paris, said Fillon could benefit from an "army of reserves who will reveal themselves at the last minute".

So who are these hidden voters? And do they actually exist? Who knows.

But come election day, Fillon's team is convinced that his result will not reflect the current polls.

There are two problems with the hidden vote theory, however. One is that Le Pen voters might have the same approach (too scared to admit it but will vote anyway), and the other is that polling companies say it's not rare that people lie in the polls, especially now it's possible to do so anonymously online.

I've also read that the margin of error of those polls is between 1,5 and 4 points,that is huge.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom