French Presidential Election, Vol. 2

[Torto]

^ hates to be mislabeled
^ proceeds to mislabel someone else

great show ol' sport

I've argued in other posts why i believe he is socialist, ol' sport. Just because you think otherwise doesn't make it so.

[Nehezbegar]

Well good bye France, welcome Kalifat of France. This is beyond me that ppl can be this stupid.

[Kallisto]

I've argued in other posts why i believe he is socialist, ol' sport. Just because you think otherwise doesn't make it so.

How is he a socialist? He's for lowering Taxes on business, loosening the limit on working hours, allowing business more free reign over their own lives. That's right of centre stuff right there?

[May90]

I feel like Macron is going to be worse than his predecessors so people will lose faith in small parties and then the Republicans and Socialists will start taking winning elections again.

I think, to be worse than Hollande, he will have to try really-really hard.

[Sky High]

Just because you think otherwise doesn't make it so.

funny how this applies equally to you.

[May90]

Which is exactly my point, yet because i believe Macron to be socialist and I don't like his pro-European stance, I get labelled alt-right by so-called centrists like Skroe. It seems the definition gets changed to suit an argument (or to belittle someone you disagree with).

I haven't read much of your posts, but what I read had little more content than the usual "evil lefties are assaulting us", so... Pretty much the favorite talking point of the so-called "alt-right". Which doesn't mean you are "alt-right", but it does mean that you look awfully similar to the stereotype.

[Sky High]

How is he a socialist? He's for lowering Taxes on business, loosening the limit on working hours, allowing business more free reign over their own lives. That's right of centre stuff right there?

neo-liberal = socialist now.

/the mind fucks

[Deletedaccount1]

I think, to be worse than Hollande, he will have to try really-really hard.

A lot of bad things happened during his presidency that were out of his control.

[May90]

A lot of bad things happened during his presidency that were out of his control.

Maybe, but people remember the results, not the processes. To be perceived as worse than Hollande, Macron must have less than 4% approval rating by the end of his presidency - which doesn't seem possible, even if he deliberately makes the worst decisions possible all the time.

Of course, the "reverse approval" effect is also not unheard of: after a few years of presidency, people may start thinking, "Hmm, Hollande wasn't actually that bad!" But something tells me that Macron is competent enough to avoid being seen in this light.

[Torto]

Things like "small government" is more of a buzzword type policy. It has no real depth and is meaningless. In what aspect should the government be smaller? Less military? Less police? Or do you just mean less social programs? Or both?

Lower taxes are also pretty much unfeasible at this point. We need a government for our society so we need taxes. How much lower do you want them? Do you know how it would impact our society?

As for not believing in global warming, of course that makes you extremely to the right.

I believe the globe is warming (not as much as alarmists tell us), I just don't buy into Anthropogenic global warming. Am I still extreme right?

[GennGreymane]

*starts making cheese cake*

Don't you love how the tides turned and people who said they would never act like such sore losers are acting like such on places like here and reddit/4chan?

lul

[Thepersona]

I believe the globe is warming (not as much as alarmists tell us), I just don't buy into Anthropogenic global warming. Am I still extreme right?

yes
/10 char

[May90]

*starts making cheese cake*

Don't you love how the tides turned and people who said they would never act like such sore losers are acting like such on places like here and reddit/4chan?

lul

I suppose on French forums a lot of posts will appear now: "Marine has lost, get over it".

[NED funded]

Well good bye France, welcome Kalifat of France. This is beyond me that ppl can be this stupid.

This is why Macron won.

[Kallisto]

I believe the globe is warming (not as much as alarmists tell us), I just don't buy into Anthropogenic global warming. Am I still extreme right?

Yes, because it's a stance brought up by the extreme right because they deny science because they feel it hits their profits. When 99% of climate scientists are all agreed on Global Warming/Climate change is heavily influenced by our actions then to deny it you're either stupid or you have an agenda. Pick.

[Kaleredar]

I believe the globe is warming (not as much as alarmists tell us), I just don't buy into Anthropogenic global warming. Am I still extreme right?

If you consider being an anti-science climate change denier as a symptom of being extreme right, then I guess you said it, not me.

[Thepersona]

Yes, because it's a stance brought up by the extreme right because they deny science because they feel it hits their profits. When 99% of climate scientists are all agreed on Global Warming/Climate change is heavily influenced by our actions then to deny it you're either stupid or you have an agenda. Pick.

and the other 1% is heavily influenced by oil companies... cmon its like the lead controversy of half a century ago!

[GennGreymane]

Yes, because it's a stance brought up by the extreme right because they deny science because they feel it hits their profits. When 99% of climate scientists are all agreed on Global Warming/Climate change is heavily influenced by our actions then to deny it you're either stupid or you have an agenda. Pick.

Well science does not work like that, consensus is not exactly the way science is. however what I just claimed is not an argument against climate change. What would be an argument is actual numbers. Most scientists who are skeptical who are not on a bank roll of Exxon or other such companies mostly disagree on degree of influence.

People on this forum like to hide behind what my first sentence is, as if thats an argument. Its not an argument.

[Kaleredar]

and the other 1% is heavily influenced by oil companies... cmon its like the lead controversy of half a century ago!

Remember, it's the word of scientists the world over saying one thing based on decades of research and academic consensus, versus the word of... fossil fuel companies.


Obviously, it's just big science trying to keep the grass roots ma-and-pa petroleum corporations down. I mean if oil and coal companies are about anything, it's always been about sticking up for the little guy, right?

[Kallisto]

Well science does not work like that, consensus is not exactly the way science is. however what I just claimed is not an argument against climate change. What would be an argument is actual numbers. Most scientists who are skeptical who are not on a bank roll of Exxon or other such companies mostly disagree on degree of influence.

People on this forum like to hide behind what my first sentence is, as if thats an argument. Its not an argument.

While true I'm being rather simplistic in my approach because A) Nearly 5am here and B) Trying to state things in a manner he's understand.

Forgive me?