What's new

French Presidential and Legislative Elections 2017-News and Updates

Lassalle Président... Our suprise of the day...or not...

Probably the most honest of the candidates. At least,we cannot say he's lying like the others.

http://www.europe1.fr/politique/jean-lassalle-ils-vont-tous-vous-b-votez-pour-moi-3221948
-
I've got the feeling that Fillon could still make it to the second round,that Macron is also overrated in the polls and could get way less than he's given to earn. Marine Le Pen could also be underrated. Hamon is already out of the race,it will depend on how much Mélenchon will get,keeping in mind that he was always overrated during Presidential elections.

What do you think ? @Louiq XIV @Taygibay
 
Probably the most honest of the candidates. At least,we cannot say he's lying like the others.

http://www.europe1.fr/politique/jean-lassalle-ils-vont-tous-vous-b-votez-pour-moi-3221948
-
I've got the feeling that Fillon could still make it to the second round,that Macron is also overrated in the polls and could get way less than he's given to earn. Marine Le Pen could also be underrated. Hamon is already out of the race,it will depend on how much Mélenchon will get,keeping in mind that he was always overrated during Presidential elections.

What do you think ? @Louiq XIV @Taygibay

You still have hope for Fillon but I don't see how he could make it to the second round. My bet is on Le Pen & Macron but you may be right as I frequently fail my predictions :(
 
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.
I guess i support some form of "socialism". Though i hate using the term "socialism" because really Islam already addressed the issue of wealth inequality long before the West's post-industrial "socialism".

Marx was barely a Jew. He did not identify himself as a Jew, or practice Judaism; he was an atheist. But that is irrelevant.
One can be an Atheist Jew since Jews believe that blood (maternal lineage to be specific) defines one to be a Jew. Case in point the Israeli blood test necessary to prove one's Jewish ancestry (again from paternal lineage) in order to obtain israeli citizenship.

I knew a half Italian-Polish Jew boy, eventhough he was officially catholic his Jewish side still recognized him as a Jew because his mother was a Polish Jew.

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.
Hmm. Well from what i recall that's not how Marx puts it in the Communist Manifesto. What you stated is basically Capitalism because you keep what you earn from your labor, but not all labor is equal. A heart surgeon's job is not of equal value as that of someone who's a street fruit vendor. So i suppose you don't support Marx's theory of "equal wealth distribution", based on what you have stated here?

Because as you said you get to keep the full value of your labor and society naturally values a heart surgeon's work more than that of a school janitor due to greater complication of the former's profession and the greater risk involved (saving lives) and thus the higher amount of qualifications required to do that job compared to the latter, thus earning the former more than the latter. But in a Communist society as envisioned by Marx both would get equal pay. After all only equal distribution of wealth in Communism and in real life you need a powerful government to ensure this equal distribution because otherwise individuals on their own will begin to establish a hierarchy with un-equal distribution of wealth based on the value of the work.

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.
Clearly in every Marxist state that has existed the government DID own everything. Perhaps because Marx's theories are not practical. Fact is in real life you need an equalizer in the form of a powerful government. People don't just distribute things equally among complete strangers of their own free will because we are naturally tribalistic and thus require a neutral equalizer in the form of government. This is especially true in societies where there is no spiritual incentive like religion, and Communism denies religion and God. Big difference between Marxism in theory and Marxism in practice.

It sounds all hunky dory in theory.
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.
No, it is VERY relevant. Imagine a morbidly obese person selling his latest belly fat burning exercise technique. Any sane individual with an average IQ will recognize the fraudster for what he is. But Communism is basically like this but on a more complicated level which is why it dupes the ignorant masses.

Now coming to Marx and Engels, both of whom lived pampered lives and never worked a day in a factory somehow know whats good for the working class. I guess that is why Communism has been such a failure. It's like a school janitor writing a manual for heart surgeons.

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.
Marx wasn't the only one nor the first one to criticize Capitalism. And he is only considered to be a "great" economic "thinker" because Western academia and universities are mainly run by leftists who worship him.

The Soviet Union collapsed because it had turned into a State-Capitalist dictatorship. And even then, they didn't fail that badly at all.
They turned into a state-capitalist dictatorship precisely because theoretical Communism is not practical. In all Communist states hierarchies formed and hierarchies by their nature are un-equal. Funny how Stalin was sitting back in his comfy villa while millions of Russians lived in their shabby isbas and workers quarters. Whatever happened to "dictatorship of the proletariat"? More like Dictatorship of a crook-turned-unofficial King (Stalin was living like a king with his private villa, private train, private bunker, private plane).

The fact that a convicted bank robber (Stalin) and his gang of budding crooks (Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest) managed to take the reins of a massive country like the Russian Empire, through Communism, says allot about Communism and its original founders.

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.
And Stalin was only able to transform the soviet union into an industrialized superpower through state-capitalism (are you now implying Capitalism is good?). Confiscating through forced collectivization and then auctioning off Russian national resources to Western Capitalists like Henry Ford and other American Capitalist companies in exchange for factories and military wares. Like i said, Communism is a blueprint for crooks to take over societies.

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.
I did not watch the video as i am short on time but i will say this: Where ever Communism established itself All of the people's of those nations gladly threw off the chains of Communism when they got the opportunity. I wonder why they would do that if they were living in Marx's utopia? Or perhaps Marx's utopia turned out to be hell on earth.

Sure, people did starve under the Czar during WW1. Things got tough. It was a war after all. And the Bolsheviks, like the crooks that they were used that as an opportunity to channel the legitimate frustrations of the people for their own nefarious agenda.

They did not have Russia's nor the Russian people's interests at heart which is why they sold off considerable Russian territory to the Central Powers in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Bolsheviks were opportunistic criminals of the worst kind. At least the Czar was a son of the soil. Bolsheviks were foreign agents inserted to undermine Russia.

a86914ea98120101c5271a7ab69f9780[1].jpg



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.
Agreed.

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
Thanks. Will check those out when i have the time.

So you'd rather have a wealthy Christian (and Zionist) like Hillary Clinton duping the dumb masses into believing the false promises of Capitalism?
Bernie endorsed Hillary, to the disappointment of his supporters. And No, actually i was against Hillary. Rooted for Trump because of his anti-NeoCon rhetoric and Nationalist message, but im disappointed in him for attacking Syria with the missile strikes. It seems the NeoCons (Neo-Cohens more like it) subverted Trump's administration and are itching for a war with Russia.


At least Bernie hasn't supported bombing a dozen countries and doesn't intend to bomb any either.
He certainly endorsed Hillary much to the dismay of his supporters, despite having promised them he would take the fight to the DNC on their behalf but then chickened out even after it was discovered he was cheated by the DNC in favor of Hillary. That is cowardice.

Also, Bernie has family living in israel and he even justified israeli strikes on Gaza in 2014 as long as they only targeted Hamas. Sure he condemned the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza, but he was not against the fact that Israel was defending itself against alleged Hamas rocket attacks. Of course, i don't blame Bernie, he is a Jew with family in Israel. He gotta look out for his relatives who are residing on land confiscated from Palestinians only some 69 years ago. Can i blame Jews for looking out for their ethnic interests. No i cannot.

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.
Right, man, buying a more than half a million dollar lake-front vacation home besides the one he already owns is not wealthy. You my friend must be a trillionaire if that's considered "not wealthy" according to you when the fact is most of the people who supported Bernie are living paycheck-to-paycheck, many are even homeless.

We have people struggling to pay off mortgages for single homes, student loans, and even apartment rents yet this guy who champions Socialism buys a second $600,000 lakefront vacation home in Vermont. And that after his campaign collected more than $200,000,000 from his support base during the election race, none of which has been returned back to those who donated. All because he promised free stuff during his election campaign :tsk:

God, sometimes i wonder i should run as a Socialist and con all of the gullible morons after promising as much free stuff as possible. I can easily scrape a good $50,000,000 at least and be set for the rest of my life :lol: .

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.

If im correct he was a Communist in the past but changed his political position a few times since but nevertheless remained on the left of the political spectrum.

I see what you did there with the 'red flag' :lol:.
Honestly, that was completely unintentional. Even i just got it :lol: . Should've have left no pun intended.

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 agree, and im no fan of unrestricted Capitalism. I believe Capitalism has its merits provided certain destructive aspects of it are removed. Same thing with "Socialism". And honestly like i said i hate using these terms as they restrict positive elements to the specific ideology and because Islam already addresses all of these issues. You should be allowed to keep the fruits of your labor provided your labor doesn't bring harm to your fellow human beings or the environment, and one can incorporate incentives to encourage productive elements of society to utilize their talents to benefit humanity thus including positive elements of socialism and capitalism. Interestingly you will find such an outlook in Fascism and National Socialism, both of which considered themselves as Third Position Ideologies in between Capitalism and Communism.

@Psychic @Nilgiri @AUSTERLITZ @The Sandman
 
Last edited:
He certainly endorsed Hillary much to the dismay of his supporters, despite having promised them he would take the fight to the DNC on their behalf but then chickened out even after it was discovered he was cheated by the DNC in favor of Hillary. That is cowardice.


Your stupidity never ends, does it? Most of Bernie's supporters, who showed up at the polls, voted for Hillary.

He made it very clear from the beginning of his campaign that he hated Trump/his policies, and would do anything to help oppose him, including endorsing Hillary. Bernie is on the opposite side of the political spectrum when compared to Trump, after all. He said he would endorse the eventual Democratic nominee (even if it wasn't himself) multiple times throughout the campaign. Anything was better than Trump for Bernie. Sorry you never paid attention to what he actually said, but that's your fault.

I find it funny, and little pathetic at the same time, that some deranged Trump supporter is talking about Bernie supporters. I am one. Most of us hate Trump, and greatly preferred Hillary to him. Tell yourself whatever nonsense you want, but it will not change the truth.

Right, man, buying a more than half a million dollar lake-front vacation home besides the one he already owns is not wealthy. You my friend must be a trillionaire if that's considered "not wealthy" according to you when the fact is most of the people who supported Bernie are living paycheck-to-paycheck, many are even homeless.


Well, no matter what, Bernie is not a multi-millionaire or billionaire, like Trump.

Most of Bernie's supporters were not poor. He did do very well with White working-class Democrats and independents, but his supporters came from many different backgrounds. And the biggest dividing factor in the Democratic Primary was age, not income.

We have people struggling to pay off mortgages for single homes, student loans, and even apartment rents yet this guy who champions Socialism buys a second $600,000 lakefront vacation home in Vermont.


Clearly you still don't understand what Democratic-Socialism is. Perhaps you're simply not capable of it. You keep repeating the same false nonsense over and over again, even on unrelated threads.

Democratic-Socialism (what Bernie believes in) is very common across Europe. It's not pure socialism and is rooted in the free market:

"Ever since Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy, much attention has been focused on the fact he calls himself a democratic socialist. Socialist, in the American lexicon, has a negative connotation, mainly because of common misunderstandings.

Sanders himself has tried many times to explain the difference between “socialism” and “democratic socialism,” but the right still seems hung up on misrepresenting his views and exploiting people’s fears. America has a rich socialist history many people are unaware of, but still fear the “S” word and picture evil dictators and red flags."


"3. It Is Not A Replacement For Capitalism

True socialism would replace the capitalist economy we live in now and replace it fully with a socialist one. While this is the dream of Marxists and socialists everywhere, this is not the plan under democratic socialism. Democratic socialism would instead put more restrictions on corporations and owners. This would include limitations on how much more money a CEO can make compared to their employees, and granting employees more rights and higher minimum wage.

4. It Is Not The Same As Regular Socialism

Democratic socialists have historically rejected the belief that the economy should be centrally planned (a centrally-planned economy is a socialist keystone belief). Instead, democratic socialism believes that some parts of society may be better if they are democratically planned: mass transit, medical care, minimum wage, etc. Democratic socialism still believes the capitalist market is best for consumer goods and services."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/5-ways-democratic-sociali_b_8876476.html


If im correct he was a Communist in the past but changed his political position a few times since but nevertheless remained on the left of the political spectrum.


He was never a Communist, but he was a bit farther left earlier in his career.

Also, Bernie has family living in israel and he even justified israeli strikes on Gaza in 2014 as long as they only targeted Hamas. Sure he condemned the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza, but he was not against the fact that Israel was defending itself against alleged Hamas rocket attacks. Of course, i don't blame Bernie, he is a Jew with family in Israel. He gotta look out for his relatives who are residing on land confiscated from Palestinians only some 69 years ago. Can i blame Jews for looking out for their ethnic interests. No i cannot.


Misleading:

"Bernie Sanders is taking a sledgehammer to the political status quo on Israel.

Sanders refused to back down Thursday night from his claim that Israel in 2014 used "disproportionate" force to respond to Hamas rocket fire from Gaza while calling for the United States to stop being "one-sided" in the conflict there. In doing so, he upended a long-standing tenet of American politics: that unflinching support for Israel is non-negotiable."

"However, it is far from clear what political costs, if any, Sanders will face from his outspokenness, which also included him stating that "we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity" and "we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time."

"He not only defended his remarks about the "disproportionate" military response but challenged Clinton to address the claim directly.

"You evaded the question," Sanders told Clinton, pushing her to defend Israel's actions. He also took her to task for not addressing the Palestinians' plight at greater length during her recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the country's largest pro-Israel lobbies."


http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/bernie-sanders-israel-democratic-politics/

And that after his campaign collected more than $200,000,000 from his support base during the election race, none of which has been returned back to those who donated.

He spent almost all the money on his campaign.


Please look through the FEC filings his campaign made. He spent the money on legitimate campaign expenses, and the FEC oversaw all of it.

Committee-Candidate Details.png

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?tabIndex=1&candidateCommitteeId=C00577130

All because he promised free stuff during his election campaign :tsk:


Asking for a living wage, income growth that doesn't go almost entirely to the wealthiest, and implementing regulations in the financial sector to help protect from asset bubbles/economic recessions/financial institutions that prey on the working class, are not "free stuff".

In fact, the more people in the working and middle classes benefit, the more and more people become ineligible for welfare, and the less "free stuff" they get.

God, sometimes i wonder i should run as a Socialist and con all of the gullible morons after promising as much free stuff as possible. I can easily scrape a good $50,000,000 at least and be set for the rest of my life :lol: .


Yes, please do. And when the Federal Government throws you in jail, I will be most happy. :lol: :usflag:


"As Bob Biersack from the Federal Election Commission points out, most candidates don’t have much left over to begin with. Campaigning is expensive, and “leftover” money gets used for bills and debts first, including expenses incurred while winding down an abandoned campaign or a lost political office.

Candidates do sometimes end up with surplus funds, though, particularly if they’re incumbent members of Congress who decide not to run for another term. State and local governments have their own rules, but those running for federal office – including presidential candidates – must abide by strict FEC guidelines when it comes to their extra campaign money. They can donate an unlimited amount to a charity or political party. They can also, within limits, make contributions directly to other candidates. A campaign committee can give up to $2,000 per election to each candidate. If the committee is converted into a political action committee, the limit jumps to $5,000 – but to be established as a PAC, the committee would have to be in existence for six months, receive contributions from 50 donors, and make contributions to five recipients.

What candidates can’t do with leftover money is use it for personal expenses. Retiring federal lawmakers used to be able to pocket extra cash and use it for cars, vacations, clothes, pet grooming, whatever – but that changed in 1989 with the passage of the Ethics Reform Act.

— Jess Henig

Federal Election Commission. "Permissible non-campaign use of funds." Code of Federal Regulations. 1 Jan. 2007."


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/personal-use-of-campaign-money/
 
...but he was not against the fact that Israel was defending itself against alleged Hamas rocket attacks.

Of course not! I'm very opposed to Israel's greater plan
of temporizing until Palestine has been absorbed but I
also have to allow for that nation defending itself.

Replace Israel with Pakistan and Hamas with India in
that sentence just for fun and see how wrong it is.
... he was not against the fact that Pakistan was defending itself against alleged Indian rocket attacks.
Of course not! It is the right of a free nation to defend itself.

Fervor is all nice until it leads one to oppose fairness.

Besides, while following this exchange of yours with
LAseKarachi with some interest, the link between long
exposes on Marx and Bernie ( sounds like a comic duo
or an ice cream brand ) and the French 2017 elections
is getting tenuous to the breaking point, ...off-topicish?

Just to help recenter this debate a tad, here's a funny
story on the date of our elections. By selecting late April
for the first round, it is possible to avoid a conjunction ...
with Easter! The Christian Pâques has April 25th as its
latest limit which happens only 4,000 times every 5,700,000 years!
The next time it does will be in 2038.

This means a mandatory Sunday can almost always be
found after the quintessential Christian holiday for voting.

The funny thing is not that a socio-historic value of religious
origin would be computed in but that this rule is as simple
as last Sunday of April versus the ultra complex computation
required to create the date of Easter. Then, one can remember
that this complexity had the aim of making it impossible or
almost for the Pâques to be on the same day as the Jewish &
assorted heretic versions ones.

Since Issa was/is all inclusive, it is funny that a couple centuries
only saw his main following so intent on isolating itself and how
easily a very secular government sidestepped it back to universal.

I'm of half a mind of writing to this inclusive Pope and suggesting that Easter be set hence on the Sunday before the French elections.
Or penultimate Sunday of April to allow yearly Pâques as we don't change presidents so often ... although many wished we had last time.

And a great day to you and yours, Tay.
 
I guess i support some form of "socialism". Though i hate using the term "socialism" because really Islam already addressed the issue of wealth inequality long before the West's post-industrial "socialism".


One can be an Atheist Jew since Jews believe that blood (maternal lineage to be specific) defines one to be a Jew. Case in point the Israeli blood test necessary to prove one's Jewish ancestry (again from paternal lineage) in order to obtain israeli citizenship.

I knew a half Italian-Polish Jew boy, eventhough he was officially catholic his Jewish side still recognized him as a Jew because his mother was a Polish Jew.


Hmm. Well from what i recall that's not how Marx puts it in the Communist Manifesto. What you stated is basically Capitalism because you keep what you earn from your labor, but not all labor is equal. A heart surgeon's job is not of equal value as that of someone who's a street fruit vendor. So i suppose you don't support Marx's theory of "equal wealth distribution", based on what you have stated here?

Because as you said you get to keep the full value of your labor and society naturally values a heart surgeon's work more than that of a school janitor due to greater complication of the former's profession and the greater risk involved (saving lives) and thus the higher amount of qualifications required to do that job compared to the latter, thus earning the former more than the latter. But in a Communist society as envisioned by Marx both would get equal pay. After all only equal distribution of wealth in Communism and in real life you need a powerful government to ensure this equal distribution because otherwise individuals on their own will begin to establish a hierarchy with un-equal distribution of wealth based on the value of the work.


Clearly in every Marxist state that has existed the government DID own everything. Perhaps because Marx's theories are not practical. Fact is in real life you need an equalizer in the form of a powerful government. People don't just distribute things equally among complete strangers of their own free will because we are naturally tribalistic and thus require a neutral equalizer in the form of government. This is especially true in societies where there is no spiritual incentive like religion, and Communism denies religion and God. Big difference between Marxism in theory and Marxism in practice.

It sounds all hunky dory in theory.

No, it is VERY relevant. Imagine a morbidly obese person selling his latest belly fat burning exercise technique. Any sane individual with an average IQ will recognize the fraudster for what he is. But Communism is basically like this but on a more complicated level which is why it dupes the ignorant masses.

Now coming to Marx and Engels, both of whom lived pampered lives and never worked a day in a factory somehow know whats good for the working class. I guess that is why Communism has been such a failure. It's like a school janitor writing a manual for heart surgeons.


Marx wasn't the only one nor the first one to criticize Capitalism. And he is only considered to be a "great" economic "thinker" because Western academia and universities are mainly run by leftists who worship him.


They turned into a state-capitalist dictatorship precisely because theoretical Communism is not practical. In all Communist states hierarchies formed and hierarchies by their nature are un-equal. Funny how Stalin was sitting back in his comfy villa while millions of Russians lived in their shabby isbas and workers quarters. Whatever happened to "dictatorship of the proletariat"? More like Dictatorship of a crook-turned-unofficial King (Stalin was living like a king with his private villa, private train, private bunker, private plane).

The fact that a convicted bank robber (Stalin) and his gang of budding crooks (Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest) managed to take the reins of a massive country like the Russian Empire, through Communism, says allot about Communism and its original founders.


And Stalin was only able to transform the soviet union into an industrialized superpower through state-capitalism (are you now implying Capitalism is good?). Confiscating through forced collectivization and then auctioning off Russian national resources to Western Capitalists like Henry Ford and other American Capitalist companies in exchange for factories and military wares. Like i said, Communism is a blueprint for crooks to take over societies.


I did not watch the video as i am short on time but i will say this: Where ever Communism established itself All of the people's of those nations gladly threw off the chains of Communism when they got the opportunity. I wonder why they would do that if they were living in Marx's utopia? Or perhaps Marx's utopia turned out to be hell on earth.

Sure, people did starve under the Czar during WW1. Things got tough. It was a war after all. And the Bolsheviks, like the crooks that they were used that as an opportunity to channel the legitimate frustrations of the people for their own nefarious agenda.

They did not have Russia's nor the Russian people's interests at heart which is why they sold off considerable Russian territory to the Central Powers in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Bolsheviks were opportunistic criminals of the worst kind. At least the Czar was a son of the soil. Bolsheviks were foreign agents inserted to undermine Russia.





Agreed.


Thanks. Will check those out when i have the time.


Bernie endorsed Hillary, to the disappointment of his supporters. And No, actually i was against Hillary. Rooted for Trump because of his anti-NeoCon rhetoric and Nationalist message, but im disappointed in him for attacking Syria with the missile strikes. It seems the NeoCons (Neo-Cohens more like it) subverted Trump's administration and are itching for a war with Russia.



He certainly endorsed Hillary much to the dismay of his supporters, despite having promised them he would take the fight to the DNC on their behalf but then chickened out even after it was discovered he was cheated by the DNC in favor of Hillary. That is cowardice.

Also, Bernie has family living in israel and he even justified israeli strikes on Gaza in 2014 as long as they only targeted Hamas. Sure he condemned the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza, but he was not against the fact that Israel was defending itself against alleged Hamas rocket attacks. Of course, i don't blame Bernie, he is a Jew with family in Israel. He gotta look out for his relatives who are residing on land confiscated from Palestinians only some 69 years ago. Can i blame Jews for looking out for their ethnic interests. No i cannot.


Right, man, buying a more than half a million dollar lake-front vacation home besides the one he already owns is not wealthy. You my friend must be a trillionaire if that's considered "not wealthy" according to you when the fact is most of the people who supported Bernie are living paycheck-to-paycheck, many are even homeless.

We have people struggling to pay off mortgages for single homes, student loans, and even apartment rents yet this guy who champions Socialism buys a second $600,000 lakefront vacation home in Vermont. And that after his campaign collected more than $200,000,000 from his support base during the election race, none of which has been returned back to those who donated. All because he promised free stuff during his election campaign :tsk:

God, sometimes i wonder i should run as a Socialist and con all of the gullible morons after promising as much free stuff as possible. I can easily scrape a good $50,000,000 at least and be set for the rest of my life :lol: .



If im correct he was a Communist in the past but changed his political position a few times since but nevertheless remained on the left of the political spectrum.


Honestly, that was completely unintentional. Even i just got it :lol: . Should've have left no pun intended.


I agree, and im no fan of unrestricted Capitalism. I believe Capitalism has its merits provided certain destructive aspects of it are removed. Same thing with "Socialism". And honestly like i said i hate using these terms as they restrict positive elements to the specific ideology and because Islam already addresses all of these issues. You should be allowed to keep the fruits of your labor provided your labor doesn't bring harm to your fellow human beings or the environment, and one can incorporate incentives to encourage productive elements of society to utilize their talents to benefit humanity thus including positive elements of socialism and capitalism. Interestingly you will find such an outlook in Fascism and National Socialism, both of which considered themselves as Third Position Ideologies in between Capitalism and Communism.

@Psychic @Nilgiri @AUSTERLITZ @The Sandman
Your stupidity never ends, does it? Most of Bernie's supporters, who showed up at the polls, voted for Hillary.

He made it very clear from the beginning of his campaign that he hated Trump/his policies, and would do anything to help oppose him, including endorsing Hillary. Bernie is on the opposite side of the political spectrum when compared to Trump, after all. He said he would endorse the eventual Democratic nominee (even if it wasn't himself) multiple times throughout the campaign. Anything was better than Trump for Bernie. Sorry you never paid attention to what he actually said, but that's your fault.

I find it funny, and little pathetic at the same time, that some deranged Trump supporter is talking about Bernie supporters. I am one. Most of us hate Trump, and greatly preferred Hillary to him. Tell yourself whatever nonsense you want, but it will not change the truth.




Well, no matter what, Bernie is not a multi-millionaire or billionaire, like Trump.

Most of Bernie's supporters were not poor. He did do very well with White working-class Democrats and independents, but his supporters came from many different backgrounds. And the biggest dividing factor in the Democratic Primary was age, not income.




Clearly you still don't understand what Democratic-Socialism is. Perhaps you're simply not capable of it. You keep repeating the same false nonsense over and over again, even on unrelated threads.

Democratic-Socialism (what Bernie believes in) is very common across Europe. It's not pure socialism and is rooted in the free market:

"Ever since Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy, much attention has been focused on the fact he calls himself a democratic socialist. Socialist, in the American lexicon, has a negative connotation, mainly because of common misunderstandings.

Sanders himself has tried many times to explain the difference between “socialism” and “democratic socialism,” but the right still seems hung up on misrepresenting his views and exploiting people’s fears. America has a rich socialist history many people are unaware of, but still fear the “S” word and picture evil dictators and red flags."


"3. It Is Not A Replacement For Capitalism

True socialism would replace the capitalist economy we live in now and replace it fully with a socialist one. While this is the dream of Marxists and socialists everywhere, this is not the plan under democratic socialism. Democratic socialism would instead put more restrictions on corporations and owners. This would include limitations on how much more money a CEO can make compared to their employees, and granting employees more rights and higher minimum wage.

4. It Is Not The Same As Regular Socialism

Democratic socialists have historically rejected the belief that the economy should be centrally planned (a centrally-planned economy is a socialist keystone belief). Instead, democratic socialism believes that some parts of society may be better if they are democratically planned: mass transit, medical care, minimum wage, etc. Democratic socialism still believes the capitalist market is best for consumer goods and services."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/5-ways-democratic-sociali_b_8876476.html





He was never a Communist, but he was a bit farther left earlier in his career.




Misleading:

"Bernie Sanders is taking a sledgehammer to the political status quo on Israel.

Sanders refused to back down Thursday night from his claim that Israel in 2014 used "disproportionate" force to respond to Hamas rocket fire from Gaza while calling for the United States to stop being "one-sided" in the conflict there. In doing so, he upended a long-standing tenet of American politics: that unflinching support for Israel is non-negotiable."

"However, it is far from clear what political costs, if any, Sanders will face from his outspokenness, which also included him stating that "we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity" and "we are going to have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time."

"He not only defended his remarks about the "disproportionate" military response but challenged Clinton to address the claim directly.

"You evaded the question," Sanders told Clinton, pushing her to defend Israel's actions. He also took her to task for not addressing the Palestinians' plight at greater length during her recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the country's largest pro-Israel lobbies."


http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/bernie-sanders-israel-democratic-politics/



He spent almost all the money on his campaign.


Please look through the FEC filings his campaign made. He spent the money on legitimate campaign expenses, and the FEC oversaw all of it.

View attachment 391005
http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?tabIndex=1&candidateCommitteeId=C00577130




Asking for a living wage, income growth that doesn't go almost entirely to the wealthiest, and implementing regulations in the financial sector to help protect from asset bubbles/economic recessions/financial institutions that prey on the working class, are not "free stuff".

In fact, the more people in the working and middle classes benefit, the more and more people become ineligible for welfare, and the less "free stuff" they get.




Yes, please do. And when the Federal Government throws you in jail, I will be most happy. :lol: :usflag:


"As Bob Biersack from the Federal Election Commission points out, most candidates don’t have much left over to begin with. Campaigning is expensive, and “leftover” money gets used for bills and debts first, including expenses incurred while winding down an abandoned campaign or a lost political office.

Candidates do sometimes end up with surplus funds, though, particularly if they’re incumbent members of Congress who decide not to run for another term. State and local governments have their own rules, but those running for federal office – including presidential candidates – must abide by strict FEC guidelines when it comes to their extra campaign money. They can donate an unlimited amount to a charity or political party. They can also, within limits, make contributions directly to other candidates. A campaign committee can give up to $2,000 per election to each candidate. If the committee is converted into a political action committee, the limit jumps to $5,000 – but to be established as a PAC, the committee would have to be in existence for six months, receive contributions from 50 donors, and make contributions to five recipients.

What candidates can’t do with leftover money is use it for personal expenses. Retiring federal lawmakers used to be able to pocket extra cash and use it for cars, vacations, clothes, pet grooming, whatever – but that changed in 1989 with the passage of the Ethics Reform Act.

— Jess Henig

Federal Election Commission. "Permissible non-campaign use of funds." Code of Federal Regulations. 1 Jan. 2007."


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/personal-use-of-campaign-money/
Of course not! I'm very opposed to Israel's greater plan
of temporizing until Palestine has been absorbed but I
also have to allow for that nation defending itself.

Replace Israel with Pakistan and Hamas with India in
that sentence just for fun and see how wrong it is.
... he was not against the fact that Pakistan was defending itself against alleged Indian rocket attacks.
Of course not! It is the right of a free nation to defend itself.

Fervor is all nice until it leads one to oppose fairness.

Besides, while following this exchange of yours with
LAseKarachi with some interest, the link between long
exposes on Marx and Bernie ( sounds like a comic duo
or an ice cream brand ) and the French 2017 elections
is getting tenuous to the breaking point, ...off-topicish?

Just to help recenter this debate a tad, here's a funny
story on the date of our elections. By selecting late April
for the first round, it is possible to avoid a conjunction ...
with Easter! The Christian Pâques has April 25th as its
latest limit which happens only 4,000 times every 5,700,000 years!
The next time it does will be in 2038.

This means a mandatory Sunday can almost always be
found after the quintessential Christian holiday for voting.

The funny thing is not that a socio-historic value of religious
origin would be computed in but that this rule is as simple
as last Sunday of April versus the ultra complex computation
required to create the date of Easter. Then, one can remember
that this complexity had the aim of making it impossible or
almost for the Pâques to be on the same day as the Jewish &
assorted heretic versions ones.

Since Issa was/is all inclusive, it is funny that a couple centuries
only saw his main following so intent on isolating itself and how
easily a very secular government sidestepped it back to universal.

I'm of half a mind of writing to this inclusive Pope and suggesting that Easter be set hence on the Sunday before the French elections.
Or penultimate Sunday of April to allow yearly Pâques as we don't change presidents so often ... although many wished we had last time.

And a great day to you and yours, Tay.
Guys can't you take this capitalist/communist/socialist/socialist democrat/Israel/Palestine/Trump/Hillary/Bernie/Marx/Engels/Russia/Czar/Bolshevik things somewhere else? This is really off topic in this thread.
 
I guess i support some form of "socialism". Though i hate using the term "socialism" because really Islam already addressed the issue of wealth inequality long before the West's post-industrial "socialism".
True, but that is very difficult to explain to people on the internet without triggering a flamewar and an assault by the Internet Atheist Brigade
Hmm. Well from what i recall that's not how Marx puts it in the Communist Manifesto. What you stated is basically Capitalism because you keep what you earn from your labor, but not all labor is equal. A heart surgeon's job is not of equal value as that of someone who's a street fruit vendor. So i suppose you don't support Marx's theory of "equal wealth distribution", based on what you have stated here? Because as you said you get to keep the full value of your labor and society naturally values a heart surgeon's work more than that of a school janitor due to greater complication of the former's profession and the greater risk involved (saving lives) and thus the higher amount of qualifications required to do that job compared to the latter, thus earning the former more than the latter. But in a Communist society as envisioned by Marx both would get equal pay.
No, not really. The idea isn't that "everyone gets paid equally". That is one of those misconceptions about Communism.

Let me explain: in Capitalism, workers do not own their means of production. They have to work for people who own those means. Means of production can be farmland, a factory, a restaurant, etc. Usually, the owners do not actually produce anything, but get to keep most of the value of the workers' labour.

When a worker produces, say $100 worth of goods an hour, he actually only gets paid a fraction of that amount in the form of a salary, say $10. Where does the remaining 90$ go? To the owner, as profit. This is called the 'surplus value'. According to Marx, this is exploitation of workers, and the owner taking that surplus value is akin to theft.

Capitalism says that the owner is entitled to all that value because the means of production belong to him and he 'takes the risk', etc. But Marx said that the only reason the owner 'owns' anything is because violence is used to enforce his control over it. (nowadays in the form of the state and police enforcing the property rights; before that, feudal lords controlled land through their armies. In that way, Capitalism is basically Feudalism Plus TM)

Now consider that the owner usually has many workers working for him - the owner accumulates the wealth that his workers produce, and invests it in the form of capital. An example of capital can be buying more machines for his factory so he can hire even more workers to work for him so he can make even more profit. This is what is called 'capital accumulation' by Marxists.

And here, the whole confrontation between capital and labour that Iqbal talks about in 'mehnat-o-sarmaya' fits in, especially nowadays with automation replacing so many jobs.

It's easier to explain this with a factory as a model, as it's much harder to quantify the value of service jobs etc, but the same principle applies to them as well.

So eventually what you have is that as productivity increases, the workers do not earn more but the owners do. Wealth keeps getting shifted upwards, and the inequality keeps increasing. This can be observed in statistics nowadays;

Marx predicted that if this continues, the workers will eventually be left with nothing and rise up against the owners. What he didn't account for is state-level reform for workers rights, because keep in mind he was writing this in the 1800s when conditions were much, much worse.

But there's the thing; state-level reform for workers rights hasn't really solved the core issue, it has outsourced it. Instead of paying workers full wages, companies shift their manufacturing to places where workers rights aren't as well-established so they can get away with paying sweatshop wages.

Anyway, here's how Communism was supposed to work; workers keep the full value of their labour, so wealth doesn't accumulate in the hands of a few. There is no private control of resources, so there is no need for a state, police, or military to enforce all this. And there is no currency, all resources are pooled and everyone gets as much as they need. Obviously this is a Utopian vision and brings its own problems with it (e.g who handles distribution, and all the other things you have said here)
Clearly in every Marxist state that has existed the government DID own everything. Perhaps because Marx's theories are not practical. Fact is in real life you need an equalizer in the form of a powerful government. People don't just distribute things equally among complete strangers of their own free will because we are naturally tribalistic and thus require a neutral equalizer in the form of government. This is especially true in societies where there is no spiritual incentive like religion, and Communism denies religion and God. Big difference between Marxism in theory and Marxism in practice.

It sounds all hunky dory in theory.
Yeah, I don't really buy the whole stateless equal society view either. Like I said, it's utopian, and too easy to turn into dystopia. But the critique of Capitalism still has merit.

Socialism, which is supposed to be a period in the transition to Communism, does have a state and currency. But workers are still supposed to control the means of production, which are controlled democratically.

In this situation, if a surgeon makes more money than a janitor, it doesn't really matter, as that surgeon isn't going to accumulate a ridiculous amount of wealth. That kind of stuff is barely a sidenote in Marxist theory.

Clearly that isn't how it worked in the USSR. Now, as Dr.Wolff says in that lecture I linked to, Stalin basically said 'this is Socialism' once he took power and proceeded to enforce a system of 'State Capitalism'.
Bernie endorsed Hillary, to the disappointment of his supporters. And No, actually i was against Hillary. Rooted for Trump because of his anti-NeoCon rhetoric and Nationalist message, but im disappointed in him for attacking Syria with the missile strikes. It seems the NeoCons (Neo-Cohens more like it) subverted Trump's administration and are itching for a war with Russia.
I know Bernie endorsed Hillary, that was a disappointment. I'd have preferred him endorsing Jill Stein instead. But I understand politically why he did it, anything to stop Trump, and Jill had no chance of winning with the way the media and establishment treats 3rd parties.

I never bought Trump's crap, even though he played this whole anti-establishment character, he was always one of them. Just look at who he's appointed as his inner circle; Rex Tillerson (i.e Big Oil), Betsy DeVos (her brother founded Blackwater and is now 'advising' Trump), Jared Kushner (real estate and Zionism).

When he started appointing these people it became blatantly obvious he wasn't going to be anti-War at all.

Hillary and Trump were two sides of the same coin:

He certainly endorsed Hillary much to the dismay of his supporters, despite having promised them he would take the fight to the DNC on their behalf but then chickened out even after it was discovered he was cheated by the DNC in favor of Hillary. That is cowardice.

Also, Bernie has family living in israel and he even justified israeli strikes on Gaza in 2014 as long as they only targeted Hamas. Sure he condemned the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza, but he was not against the fact that Israel was defending itself against alleged Hamas rocket attacks. Of course, i don't blame Bernie, he is a Jew with family in Israel. He gotta look out for his relatives who are residing on land confiscated from Palestinians only some 69 years ago. Can i blame Jews for looking out for their ethnic interests. No i cannot.
Let's not forget that Bernie is still an American running in America. Being anti-Israel even in the slightest is political suicide there, and as that article posted by @LA se Karachi shows, even taking a moderate stance on it is considered 'a sledgehammer'.
Misleading:

"Bernie Sanders is taking a sledgehammer to the political status quo on Israel.

Sanders refused to back down Thursday night from his claim that Israel in 2014 used "disproportionate" force to respond to Hamas rocket fire from Gaza while calling for the United States to stop being "one-sided" in the conflict there. In doing so, he upended a long-standing tenet of American politics: that unflinching support for Israel is non-negotiable."

Doesn't really matter anyway, elections are over. And even if he did win, the Establishment, Lobbies, and Institutional Intertia wouldn't have let him change things even if he wanted to.
Right, man, buying a more than half a million dollar lake-front vacation home besides the one he already owns is not wealthy. You my friend must be a trillionaire if that's considered "not wealthy" according to you when the fact is most of the people who supported Bernie are living paycheck-to-paycheck, many are even homeless.
Not much of a trillionaire myself, unless you're counting in Zimbabwean Dollars, but what I meant was that compared to Hillary, Trump, Obama etc, he isn't really wealthy, never mind when compared to the 1% like Gates or Zuckerberg (who just bought an entire island and could probably buy a country if he really wanted to).
The fact that a convicted bank robber (Stalin) and his gang of budding crooks (Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest) managed to take the reins of a massive country like the Russian Empire, through Communism, says allot about Communism and its original founders.
You should know that before Lenin died, he wrote a letter warning against Stalin, and Stalin later had Trotsky exiled and murdered.

As for 'convicted bank robber', that doesn't really mean anything if you put it in context of the time. There are countless things you can use against Stalin, he was actually an evil man, but that is probably the weakest considering the situation at the time. If you read Alan Bullock's 'Hitler and Stalin, Parallel Lives' (I admit I've only read about a quarter of it), you'll see that Stalin's psychopathy was actually worse than being a mere crook, and the social/economic/political environment under which he grew up was equally reflected in his personality.

The fact that they managed to takeover the entire country does say a lot. It shows how horrible the Tsarist regime was at governance, but also that the people were truly desperate to get rid of them. Keep in mind that the revolution that overthrew the Tsar was different from the Bolshevik Revolution. A lot of people other than the Bolsheviks wanted the Tsar gone, and the first revolution in 1917 was actually a spontaneous popular movement.

The Bolshevik October Revolution, on the other hand, was a planned coup brilliantly executed by Lenin and Trotsky.
I won't defend the Bolsheviks' methods, they were undoubtedly very brutal, definitely not a beacon of morality.
I did not watch the video as i am short on time but i will say this: Where ever Communism established itself All of the people's of those nations gladly threw off the chains of Communism when they got the opportunity. I wonder why they would do that if they were living in Marx's utopia? Or perhaps Marx's utopia turned out to be hell on earth.

Sure, people did starve under the Czar during WW1. Things got tough. It was a war after all.
The video is just a humorous compilation of Carl Sagan saying big numbers, was meant as a joke.

I've already established that the 'Communism' established in the Soviet Union was actually very far from Marx's ideas.

But about the Tsar - people were actually starving long before the war. There was a bit of a revolution in 1905; there were some mutinies, but it was mostly unarmed peasants protesting, and the Tsarist forces basically massacred them. They had a secret police, the Okhrana, well known for torture, violence, and the use of double-agents - and ironically, the Okhrana thought the Bolsheviks were 'relatively harmless' and actively supported them as a counterweight to other revolutionary groups.

The war only made things worse. The Tsarist regime was a brutal tyranny, they deserved to be overthrown.
They did not have Russia's nor the Russian people's interests at heart which is why they sold off considerable Russian territory to the Central Powers in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Bolsheviks were opportunistic criminals of the worst kind. At least the Czar was a son of the soil. Bolsheviks were foreign agents inserted to undermine Russia.
I wouldn't really call the Tsar a 'son of the soil'. European royals at the time were notoriously 'intermarried', and there were a lot of theories at the time among the people of the Tsar being a traitor because he was married to a German.

One thing i'll say though is that the Tsar himself wasn't really that evil, at least not in my view - but he was incompetent at governance and did want absolute power. Much of his regime consisted of rich landowners and feudal-style lords. Some industrialists as well. And if you want some really freaky stuff about the Tsarists, look up Rasputin and prince Yusupov.

This is a fairly decent video about pre-WW1 Russia:
That channel in general is quite good.

As for Brest-Litovsk; the Russians had no chance at winning that war. That war really had brought extreme pain and suffering to the people of Russia, and ending it was a very popular position. Again, while the Bolsheviks did many horrible things, this probably wasn't one of them. As your map shows, the Germans and Austro-Hungarians had actually seized a lot of territory - reclaiming it would have cost hundreds of thousands of Russian lives, and even if the soldiers were willing to fight, they didn't have the industrial capacity to produce weapons, nor the logistical capacity to effectively transport any resources they had to the front.

The Bolsheviks could overthrow the Provisional Government that came after the Tsar partly because of their policy of continuing the war, which was extremely unpopular with soldiers and people in general and made it very easy for the Bolsheviks to gain support.
I agree, and im no fan of unrestricted Capitalism. I believe Capitalism has its merits provided certain destructive aspects of it are removed. Same thing with "Socialism". And honestly like i said i hate using these terms as they restrict positive elements to the specific ideology and because Islam already addresses all of these issues. You should be allowed to keep the fruits of your labor provided your labor doesn't bring harm to your fellow human beings or the environment, and one can incorporate incentives to encourage productive elements of society to utilize their talents to benefit humanity thus including positive elements of socialism and capitalism. Interestingly you will find such an outlook in Fascism and National Socialism, both of which considered themselves as Third Position Ideologies in between Capitalism and Communism.
True, absolutely true.

The reason I lean more towards socialism is because a lot of the discourse on Islamic Economics such as that by Iqbal uses Socialism as a comparison to Islamic Economics.

For example, Iqbal had sympathy for the socialist movement and considered socialism to be "the modern interpretation of Islamic political ideas – a rejection of monarchical, hereditary and oppressive institutions, and racialism."

"But he saw in communism/Marxism the same lack of God as in capitalism; that communism is good in that it rejects the old injustices (theلا in لا إله إلا الله), but fails on the affirmation of truth (إلا الله) – providing little to offer as an alternative. Thus both capitalist-imperialist democracy and revolutionary communism are insufficient for the Islamic state."
(I'm quoting this article: http://www.stratagem.pk/cover-story/iqbals-vision-of-the-sovereign-state/ Note: I don't support everything on that site, but this analysis is quite interesting)

Those views are pretty obvious in Iqbal's poem Lenin Khuda ke Hazoor Mei

Let's look at what Islam actually says on economics;
img_894.JPG

So, instead of 'Surplus Value', Islam has a concept of 'surplus income' which should be given to those who need it. It is pretty close to the Socialist "to each according to their need" principle, but is superior to that as it maintains a balance and is also realistic and practical.

There is also the Bait-ul-Maal, which was a common pool of resources. But some resources were privately owned, and honest trade was encouraged.

There are countless more examples of Islamic economics; it's quite sophisticated and honestly I don't think I'm qualified enough to understand it fully, it's a very complex field, and I haven't even read Iqbal's ilmul iqtesaad yet.
Honestly, that was completely unintentional. Even i just got it :lol: . Should've have left no pun intended.
Subtle puns are the best puns, it you hammer it in one can easily get sickle of it..
Guys can't you take this capitalist/communist/socialist/socialist democrat/Israel/Palestine/Trump/Hillary/Bernie/Marx/Engels/Russia/Czar/Bolshevik things somewhere else? This is really off topic in this thread.
My apologies, it started as an attempt to clear up the political stances of French politicians but you know the internet rabbit-hole phenomenon is pretty powerful.

@Desert Fox tag me if you want to continue this discussion in a different thread
 
Last edited:
Hum! As long as this is about France, let's not rule out communism^^^

About ten years before Pakistan was born, in 1936, an experiment called
the Front Populaire came to power uniting leftists incl. the communist PCF.

That government burned under the lack of economic recovery in mere months
and the coalition was entirely dissolved by 1938 but ...

they first had realized and implemented their plan nowadays known as
les Accords de Matignon / from the now PM's office.

Those gave the people :
the right to strike;
the right to collective representation;
the initial ( 2 weeks ) annual paid leave;
a 40 hours work week;
hiked wages with more increase to poorest.
133 laws passed in 73 days show how driven they were.
The economics failed but the ideas got picked up and never left ( pun )
the collective psyche of either French politicians nor regular folks.

Ever since, our government has been more controlling / interventionniste than most
and even today, the Matignon Agreements are a mantra for the Left and a founding
memory of the citizens' entitlement regarding work and life.

I saw last year an exposition on it in Paris at the Hôtel de Ville.
You should have seen the simple joy of life in the eyes of the
factory workers vacationing fo the first time in period pictures.
Thanks to discount rail and lodging accommodations, thousands
and through the years since millions of less fortunate Frenchmen
at least once went in the countryside, to the mountains, to the sea.

My country is rich enough to allow this, which is more than a luxury
to the recipients that may never visit foreign lands and in any case,
an investment in happier more productive people.

The idea is, that to a French person, communist is not a dirty word
even though it was diversely mishandled worldwide since. It was a
joke by itself during the late Cold War as the PCF became more
Stalinist than the Kremlin and spewed forth passé rhetoric nonsense.
However, that is the exact strength of Melanchon that he rebranded
the party around his charismatic image and dropped true communist
symbology. [ Do check their logo and Marine did as much BTW. ]

If he manages to keep the hammer and sickle in the closet, beam
beatific confidence and belt out laughing future promises, he may
well be tapping into the memory of that Front populaire experiment.

Just sayin', Tay.

 
@Philia @LA se Karachi

The last opinionway poll for Les Echos and Radio Classique;

Marine Le Pen : 22% (-1)
Emmanuel Macron : 22% (=)
François Fillon : 21% (+1)
Jean Luc Mélenchon : 18% (+1)
Benoît Hamon : 8% (-1)
Nicolas Dupont-Aignan : 3% (=)
Jean Lassalle : 2% (=)
Philippe Poutou : 2% (=)
François Asselineau : 1% (-1)
Nathalie Arthaud : 1% (+1)
Jacques Cheminade : ~0% (=)

-
On the hypohtesis of a second round Macron vs Le Pen ;

Emmanuel Macron 64% (+2) - Marine Le Pen 36% (-2)

On the hypothesis of a second round Fillon vs Le Pen ;

François Fillon 60% (+2) - Marine Le Pen 40% (-2)
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom