Election France 2007 - the results are in...

**Cliff Huckable** · 05-06-2007, 04:23 PM

Ségolène Royal...she lost.

Nicolas Sarkozy...he won.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions?

**Rontele** · 05-06-2007, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions?

who cares?

**Cliff Huckable** · 05-06-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rontele

who cares?

Millions and millions of people. I thought you might. I was counting your contribution.

**filthyfrenchbum** · 05-06-2007, 05:01 PM

These elections were the very first time I ever voted, and although I usually stand on the left side of the political spectrum, I voted for Sarkozy both rounds. However, I would have been satisfied either way, I just decided it was worth taking the risk to vote for a more extreme person that will most likely bring some sort of change, I only hope his real personality does not differ too much from what he presented during the campaign (a fairly unnatural image, politically correct in my opinion), and that the parliament gets a fair share of leftists to bring up the social issues that need to be fixed very quickly and were a little bit overlooked by the winning candidate. I hope for the best.
Royal imo lacked some charisma to be able to lead the country, and because the socialists have failed quite a bit within the past few years, I was not trustful enough to give her my vote. Let's hope the left manages to improve and modernize their image within the next 5 years, so that they can give themselves a chance to win eventually...

**Chemical Ali' The Wax Master** · 05-06-2007, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

Ségolène Royal...she lost.

Nicolas Sarkozy...he won.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions?

She can't be French, she has good teeth.

**truckeelocal** · 05-06-2007, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions?

They're a democracy now ? What happened to De Gaul

**philippeR** · 05-06-2007, 05:27 PM

I care. My candidate lost and I'm.. disappointed.
She led a bad campaign, and I think she was not prepared enough to the job though.
Sarkozy should be up to it, and he has a new perspective for a french politician. But he also has someting freaky about him. His appetite for power seems so overwhelming it's disturbing. I don't trust him.
Next election : parliament in 5 weeks. The socialists must resist the urge to crucify Ségolène Royal until then...

Edit : Fuck, I'm really bummed !

**Crud's Uncle** · 05-06-2007, 06:42 PM

I agree, it is France, who cares.

A hundred years ago it would have mattered.

**Cliff Huckable** · 05-06-2007, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Chemical Ali' The Wax Master

She can't be French, she has good teeth.

You've got the wrong stereotype - it's the British who have (had) problem teeth!

Get your stereotypes in order!

**warthog** · 05-06-2007, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

You've got the wrong stereotype - it's the British who have (had) problem teeth!

Get your stereotypes in order!

Yes, I mean her olfactory protuberance is prominent enough.How would you miss that one?

**Kroenen** · 05-06-2007, 09:55 PM

I care. The French share their problems with most countries in western Europe, and in my view, it largely boils down to demographics. The situation in France (along with Holland and Sweden) is the most severe. Today's France is what most likely awaits the rest of us a few years down the road, given the current political climate. They're the guinea pigs, so to speak. I really do hope the French will remain masters of their own house, and not end up sacrificing what previous generations have fought for and we today take for granted, and in that respect, I think Sarkozy is a better choice than Royal.

I'll leave it at that for now. I've been up most of the night with a sick dog and desperately need what little sleep I can get before work.

**skiing-in-jackson** · 05-06-2007, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Chemical Ali' The Wax Master

She can't be French, she has good teeth.

I thought that was the English.

Attachment 26442

**mrw** · 05-07-2007, 06:51 AM

So, does this mean I can eat french fries again?

**RootSkier** · 05-07-2007, 10:26 AM

Only if you are willing to admit that you are an ugly American.

**philippeR** · 05-07-2007, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by RootSkier

Only if you are willing to admit that you are an ugly American.

No need to. We're already aware of that fact.
Please proceed with the fries. You'll be ugly and fat.

**mr_gyptian** · 05-07-2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by philippeR

I care. My candidate lost and I'm.. disappointed.
She led a bad campaign, and I think she was not prepared enough to the job though.
Sarkozy should be up to it, and he has a new perspective for a french politician. But he also has someting freaky about him. His appetite for power seems so overwhelming it's disturbing. I don't trust him.
Next election : parliament in 5 weeks. The socialists must resist the urge to crucify Ségolène Royal until then...

Edit : Fuck, I'm really bummed !

how in the name of Zeus can a socialist candidate get this far in a modern day western european election?

old Europe will hopefully get younger under Sarkozy.

**truckeelocal** · 05-07-2007, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

how in the name of Zeus can a socialist candidate get this far in a modern day western european election?

old Europe will hopefully get younger under Sarkozy.

I'm not sure that you're aware of this but even a right wing European politician (with the exception of Le Pen) is to the left of any mainstream US politician

**philippeR** · 05-07-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

how in the name of Zeus can a socialist candidate get this far in a modern day western european election?

old Europe will hopefully get younger under Sarkozy.

I'm sure you're aware that Ségolène Royal was not socialist as in 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_o...ean_Socialists

**lemon boy** · 05-07-2007, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by philippeR

I'm sure you're aware that Ségolène Royal was not socialist as in 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_o...ean_Socialists

no shit huh?

spook · 05-07-2007, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by philippeR

I'm sure you're aware that Ségolène Royal was not socialist as in 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_o...ean_Socialists

you should never assume anything in here. lots of homeschoolers.

**mr_gyptian** · 05-07-2007, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by philippeR

I'm sure you're aware that Ségolène Royal was not socialist as in 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_o...ean_Socialists

yes, I'm aware.

That doesn't change the fact that if she were in office and was enable her "pact". Your country would fall even further behind economically. If that's possible.

Ms Royal promises to boost the minimum wage to €1,500 a month ($2,000, a 19.6% jump), increase the lowest state pensions by 5%, abolish the new flexible job contract for small firms, create 500,000 subsidised jobs for young graduates, and pay the entire salary and social charges for unskilled young people to work for a year in small businesses. She plans a big increase in spending on universities, research and innovation, and the construction of 120,000 social housing units a year.

To pay for all this, it is hard to see how Ms Royal could avoid putting up taxes. She insists, however, that she will not increase the overall tax burden. Instead, her plans, which optimistically assume annual GDP growth of 2.5%, depend heavily on that familiar fallback: eliminating waste.

As Ms Royal has criss-crossed France, posing with striking workers at a car factory outside Paris or urging a mass rally in Marseille to sing the national anthem, one word has been virtually absent from her speeches: growth. Indeed, her determination to make things juste (fair) seems to triumph over her analysis of how to achieve it. A businesswoman at an election forum organised by ELLE magazine last week asked her in what way raising the minimum wage would help entrepreneurs to create jobs. Ms Royal retorted that the minimum wage, at its current level, was simply too low to pay the rent. In other words, she seemed to be saying, the impact on job creation was not the point.

**PNWbrit** · 05-07-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by TruckeeLocal

Le Pen

I'd guess that Gyptian probably finds him worryingly liberal at times.

**philippeR** · 05-07-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

yes, I'm aware.

That doesn't change the fact that if she were in office and was enable her "pact". Your country would fall even further behind economically. If that's possible.

Ms Royal promises to boost the minimum wage to €1,500 a month ($2,000, a 19.6% jump), increase the lowest state pensions by 5%, abolish the new flexible job contract for small firms, create 500,000 subsidised jobs for young graduates, and pay the entire salary and social charges for unskilled young people to work for a year in small businesses. She plans a big increase in spending on universities, research and innovation, and the construction of 120,000 social housing units a year.

To pay for all this, it is hard to see how Ms Royal could avoid putting up taxes. She insists, however, that she will not increase the overall tax burden. Instead, her plans, which optimistically assume annual GDP growth of 2.5%, depend heavily on that familiar fallback: eliminating waste.

As Ms Royal has criss-crossed France, posing with striking workers at a car factory outside Paris or urging a mass rally in Marseille to sing the national anthem, one word has been virtually absent from her speeches: growth. Indeed, her determination to make things juste (fair) seems to triumph over her analysis of how to achieve it. A businesswoman at an election forum organised by ELLE magazine last week asked her in what way raising the minimum wage would help entrepreneurs to create jobs. Ms Royal retorted that the minimum wage, at its current level, was simply too low to pay the rent. In other words, she seemed to be saying, the impact on job creation was not the point.

You're aware that the election is over ?

**truckeelocal** · 05-07-2007, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I'd guess that Gyptian probably finds him worryingly liberal at times.

Yep, all rolled neatly into the phrase "Old Europe". That "old Europe" is penned by Marx in the opening to the Communist manifesto probably would disturb him if he ever found out. But if Rummy used it it must be ok.

**Cliff Huckable** · 05-07-2007, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

yes, I'm aware.

That doesn't change the fact that if she were in office and was enable her "pact". Your country would fall even further behind economically. If that's possible.

Ms Royal promises to boost the minimum wage to €1,500 a month ($2,000, a 19.6% jump), increase the lowest state pensions by 5%, abolish the new flexible job contract for small firms, create 500,000 subsidised jobs for young graduates, and pay the entire salary and social charges for unskilled young people to work for a year in small businesses. She plans a big increase in spending on universities, research and innovation, and the construction of 120,000 social housing units a year.

To pay for all this, it is hard to see how Ms Royal could avoid putting up taxes. She insists, however, that she will not increase the overall tax burden. Instead, her plans, which optimistically assume annual GDP growth of 2.5%, depend heavily on that familiar fallback: eliminating waste.

As Ms Royal has criss-crossed France, posing with striking workers at a car factory outside Paris or urging a mass rally in Marseille to sing the national anthem, one word has been virtually absent from her speeches: growth. Indeed, her determination to make things juste (fair) seems to triumph over her analysis of how to achieve it. A businesswoman at an election forum organised by ELLE magazine last week asked her in what way raising the minimum wage would help entrepreneurs to create jobs. Ms Royal retorted that the minimum wage, at its current level, was simply too low to pay the rent. In other words, she seemed to be saying, the impact on job creation was not the point.

Do you have any kind of grasp on what you're talking about here?

And do you realize that not everyone on earth measures the worth of a country by its economic indicators?