Sarkozy DonnÉ Gagnant

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
actually i think his victory does give him the right to do whatever he wants - hes got one of the highest scores ever for a president of the 5th republic. as bush would say, hes got political capital, and he intends to spend it.

I'm not surprised that you think so. You are a dyed in the wool sarkozyst: you are an extremist of free-market reforms (your libertarian stance is well known), and you're a bigot against the banlieues. Obviously, with his speeches, you gotta love him, and hope that he does whatever he wants.

show me evidence where he said he is against minorities - he is one himself!

First, Sarkozy is very much a majority. He's white. He's upper class. He won a clear political victory. He's of average age. In France, being of foreign origin makes barely any difference as long as it doesn't show on your face. Except that it can give you political arguments.

Secondly, I don't think Sarkozy's a racist. I don't think he hates racial minorities, just like I don't think he outright hates the poor. However, in his speeches, in his approach to power, in his approach to the only actual crisis he had to manage (the riots), he showed that he divides France in two sides. "Those who get up early", and the leeches (he never used the word "leech" AFAIK, but he used a variety of words to give that idea).
The leeches can be pretty much anything the general populace doesn't like: Racailles, obviously. But also illegal immigrants. Civil servants (who're all lazy, that's why only half of them will get replaced as they go into retirement). The unemployed, who obviously leech off those who work. Cheaters in the subway.
Curiously enough, I've never heard him attack tax-dodgers, despite them costing about €40 billion to France, which is our yearly deficit.

Basically, during his whole tenure, and during his campaign, he created a conflict between two Frances. And I haven't heard him say something nice, or something moderating, about the bad side. Not once.

The two boys that got fried in Clichy's electric post? They were known by the police for repeated theft. (read: "they were thugs anyway". Also, it's perfectly false).

The guy who didn't pay his subway ticket, and whose ticket-control led to the mini riots in Gare du Nord? Either you're on the side of the fraudsters, or you're on the side of those who pay their tickets; I'm on the side who pays their ticket! (never mind the fact that the control was getting so ugly, the paying passengers offered to pay the bill)

In short, Sarkozy created two Frances, making them conflict against each other, and he explained to one of those Frances, the moral one, that he was their candidate, against the bad guys. And for political gain, he'll do anything against the "bad guys", as long as it reinforces his votes among the "good guys". It's no surprise that his votes so largely come from the old (page 3) people, who're more likely to be moralistic voters.

During the riots, he was the one who wanted direct confrontation against the racailles. Fortunately, Villepin forbade him. That's why the weapons weren't out. Nonetheless, he seethed that he was barred from using direct force against the rioters. Considering how he saw them (he made no difference between those who threw rocks, and those who tried to kill people), it's patently clear that he'd have made a clear case of tyranny of the majority against the rioters, instead of letting justice work.

With illegal immigrants, he gave clear orders in all districts, that they had a quota to fill. He insisted not to care about human-rights associations (opposed to the way it occured), and obtain the result demanded. It's only when the human rights associations managed to embarass him that he threw a bone (6000 regularisations, when more than 20,000 filled the requirements).
Otherwise, the illegal immigrants deserved whatever happened to them: indignant arrestations (I know several stories), indignant detentionary conditions. As long as it wasn't a mediatic embarassment, it wasn't a problem.

--------------------------

So, he's clearly the president of one France, which he built against the other. And he won't relish at oppressing that "bad" France, whenever he needs a boost within "good" France.

But there's not only that. Sarko ascribes to a "cesarist" view of democracy. I.e a view where the elected leader has legitimacy to do whatever he wants, as long as the people don't vote him out. This obsession with electoral legitimacy was very clear during his row against Villepin: Villepin has never been elected, and Sarkozy had him in contempt for that. This is also very clear when he makes small meetings where he can discuss with the audience: very often, when someone in the assistance says something unpleasant, he shuts that person up, because that person doesn't represent anybody. That's his position toward human rights associations. I've seen him do exactly that on TV during the riots. At the same time, I saw him respect his opponents who ranked as high as him - problem is, he now ranks above everybody.

Not only does he consider that electoral legitimacy is immense, and allows to hold in contempt those who don't have it, he is also strongly for personalization of politics. For the past 5 years, he's been campaigning. It's always "I", "I", "I". France is supposed to be "we". A government (that thing he belonged to for almost all of the past 5 years) is supposed to be "we". Not with Sarko.

Despite having a supposedly precise role in the government, Sarko talked about everything, in that peremptory tone. Tranportation. Education. Justice (justice! He's the ****ing police minister FFS, and was threatening the judges). Turkey membership. Pretty much everything, or at least every hot topic, HE expressed HIS ideas, often pressuring the rest of the government (including the adequate minister, who actually has a clue about what really happens) either to follow, or to strongly oppose what its main minister said.

Not only that, but he cumulated the interior ministry, the presidency of the Hauts de Seine district (France's richest), and the presidency of the UMP. It was all about him, and he didn't hide it.


Those are the many clues that lead me to believe he won't hesitate to oppress the minority when need arises. Not "minority" in the sense of racial or political minority (he's not stupid enough to do a blunder like this). But "minority" in the sense of that "bad" France, which is a convenient punching ball whenever the voters have to rally around the flag.
Combine that with an exaggerated belief in electoral legitimacy, and a very personalized view of politics, and you'll end up with someone who'll do whatever he wants until the next election, if there aren't any counterweights.

[Drake Tungsten]

you gotta love him, and hope that he does whatever he wants.

moralistic voters.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I'm not surprised that you think so. You are a dyed in the wool sarkozyst: you are an extremist of free-market reforms (your libertarian stance is well known), and you're a bigot against the banlieues. Obviously, with his speeches, you gotta love him, and hope that he does whatever he wants.

actually funny thing, i used to dislike him as much as the next guy because everyone was saying he is fascist - hes not, he would fit solidly in the US democratic party. dont buy the hype.
im glad my libertarian stance is well known LE PEUPLE EST SOUVERAIN!
extremist of free market reforms? whats extreme? do you mean that I am for what economic theory says will produce the most winners and the least losers? yes. do you mean I am for what will create sustainable and healthy growth/nations/governments? yep. pretty much, just read the economist, and i line up pretty good with that (or maybe Les Echos)

First, Sarkozy is very much a majority. He's white. He's upper class. He won a clear political victory. He's of average age. In France, being of foreign origin makes barely any difference as long as it doesn't show on your face. Except that it can give you political arguments.

not just face, but name also. Everyone knows Sarkozy isnt a french name by a mile, you know and i know that can be a big problem, especially when firms cannot fire once they've hired.

Secondly, I don't think Sarkozy's a racist. I don't think he hates racial minorities, just like I don't think he outright hates the poor. However, in his speeches, in his approach to power, in his approach to the only actual crisis he had to manage (the riots), he showed that he divides France in two sides. "Those who get up early", and the leeches (he never used the word "leech" AFAIK, but he used a variety of words to give that idea).

did you know that not a single person died during the riots (not a policeman, not a rioter) (hedge: i think thats correct) il l'a dit lui même: pendant les émeutes, j'ai passé 27 nuit blanches. and yes, he divides france into two sides, the majority who gets up early works hard and makes the country run, and the rest who free ride on the hard work of others. ( la minorité qui plombe les ailes de l'économie.) do you disagree? does not a majority of french work hard and end up subsidizing the lazy? and why are they lazy? because they are paid so much. its not a french thing, the fact is that if you set up your system anywhere else in the world, people would respond to the same disincentives to work as they do in france (sit on their ass geting paid not to work by those who wake up early) dont you think thats unfair for morally wrong?

Curiously enough, I've never heard him attack tax-dodgers, despite them costing about €40 billion to France, which is our yearly deficit.

c'est un faux débat et vous le savez. même avec les 40 millards pour assainir votre buget, votre gouvernment trouverait un moyen d'en dépenser d'avantage. mais bon, he doesnt attack tax-dodgers because thats not the CAUSE of your problems, its part of the symptoms. you have a bad system set up, so people leave. and its not just tax dodgers, its france's best and brightest. why do you insist n driving them abroad? is that what you want? whats the point of having the state subsidize your education when all of your most highly trained (and thus expensive) professionals go abroad. in the end, you are subsidizing your neighbors economic growth. you want to accept the poor and the uneducated, sure, but someone needs to pay for all the services.

Basically, during his whole tenure, and during his campaign, he created a conflict between two Frances. And I haven't heard him say something nice, or something moderating, about the bad side. Not once.

and that makes his a fascist how? that makes him the antichrist how? he is fighting ignorance, why should he cede an inch to the forces of darkness? you've gone down the wrong road for so long now, theres no reason to acknowledge the people who did that in the first place. thats what created le malaise français.

The guy who didn't pay his subway ticket, and whose ticket-control led to the mini riots in Gare du Nord? Either you're on the side of the fraudsters, or you're on the side of those who pay their tickets; I'm on the side who pays their ticket! (never mind the fact that the control was getting so ugly, the paying passengers offered to pay the bill)

so nows he is directly responsible pour l'intervention musclée de la police de la RATP? the fact is that the guy should have paid. should he have been mistreated and manhandled? no, but it doesnt change the fact that he was in the wrong.

n short, Sarkozy created two Frances, making them conflict against each other, and he explained to one of those Frances, the moral one, that he was their candidate, against the bad guys. And for political gain, he'll do anything against the "bad guys", as long as it reinforces his votes among the "good guys". It's no surprise that his votes so largely come from the old (page 3) people, who're more likely to be moralistic voters.

actually, its interesting that the vote comes ffrom the old, those from Mai 68, who are now rejecting all that they fought for because it has led France to the edge of the precipice. the man got one of the highest scores in the history of the 5th republic, hes not dividing France, he has united them more than ever behind him (more than almost any president ever.) we will see what the legislatives will do, but I expect the results to confirm the trend.

During the riots, he was the one who wanted direct confrontation against the racailles. Fortunately, Villepin forbade him. That's why the weapons weren't out. Nonetheless, he seethed that he was barred from using direct force against the rioters. Considering how he saw them (he made no difference between those who threw rocks, and those who tried to kill people), it's patently clear that he'd have made a clear case of tyranny of the majority against the rioters, instead of letting justice work.

tyranny of the majority? its illegal to burn cars, riot, burn buses. thats called breaking the law. if you want to change the laws, then go ahead. feeling disenfranchised? well you can thank the left and chirac for not doing anything for you. they created the system that has 20% youth unemployment in these places because firms cannot afford to hire (becAUse they cant fire) and for the last time, lets be clear what racaille means. it doesnt mean arab, or poor, or immigrant, or those from Seine-St-Denis, or those from the cités, it means those who were rioting. no more, no less.
and villepin is a coward. being a student of history, he should have known that every government who has folded to the pressure of the street has been voted out the next election. he should not have backed down, and rammed through the CPE because as the legitamatly elected government, he had a duty towards the institutions, towards democracy, towards the republic and towards the majority who elected his party as a majority to enact his legislative plan in the face of social action by the minority.

With illegal immigrants, he gave clear orders in all districts, that they had a quota to fill. He insisted not to care about human-rights associations (opposed to the way it occured), and obtain the result demanded. It's only when the human rights associations managed to embarass him that he threw a bone (6000 regularisations, when more than 20,000 filled the requirements).
Otherwise, the illegal immigrants deserved whatever happened to them: indignant arrestations (I know several stories), indignant detentionary conditions. As long as it wasn't a mediatic embarassment, it wasn't a problem.

source for quota?

But there's not only that. Sarko ascribes to a "cesarist" view of democracy. I.e a view where the elected leader has legitimacy to do whatever he wants, as long as the people don't vote him out. This obsession with electoral legitimacy was very clear during his row against Villepin: Villepin has never been elected, and Sarkozy had him in contempt for that. This is also very clear when he makes small meetings where he can discuss with the audience: very often, when someone in the assistance says something unpleasant, he shuts that person up, because that person doesn't represent anybody. That's his position toward human rights associations. I've seen him do exactly that on TV during the riots. At the same time, I saw him respect his opponents who ranked as high as him - problem is, he now ranks above everybody.

he should have contempt for him, villepin had no spine and was not prepared to do the necessary to save france from the unions and students. villepin also adored napoleon and grew up in wealth, while Sarkozy was the son of an immigrant whose father rolled out an refused to pay alimony. villepin went to Sciences Po Paris and to l'ENA and is part of the REpublican Aristocracy that you guys have set up over there. Sarkozy has contempt because the man was given everything in his life.

the rest seems more like you dont like it that he likes power. you think segolene likes power any less? shes not even married, and some say its just a political union between her and hollande. like bill and hillary.

but i dont believe the justification for 'counterweight' villepin did not exhibit these supposedlt 'fascist, racist, power hunger blah blah' traits, yet you guys put together the biggest strike since the 60s. its more that you want to disrupt the republican process because you believe that no matter the result of the election, you have the right to force the government to follow your minority program. and that is quitenssentially antirepublican, antiliberty, and antidemocratic.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia actually funny thing, i used to dislike him as much as the next guy because everyone was saying he is fascist - hes not, he would fit solidly in the US democratic party.

Yup, pretty much sums up my attitude about him, too. Initially bought the spin, then questioned it and took a look at what he had actually said and done, realized that the spin was bull****.

"Dividing"... . Yeah, dividing thugs and murderers from people who want to play by the rules of a peaceful society, imagine that. A real divider indeed, what a pity you couldn't get an uniter like Royal. "Dividing" my ass.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
*snip*
Curiously enough, I've never heard him attack tax-dodgers, despite them costing about €40 billion to France, which is our yearly deficit.
*snip*

Catching tax-dodgers doesn't seem to really be a political question, and its not really amenable to solutions that can be presented before the public (or would be terribly controversial if presented before the public). It's something better left to the bureaucrats IMO.

[Spiffor]

LoA:
I'm gonna sleep, I don't have time to respond point-per-point to your post.

Just one thing, because you seem seriously off in this regard: Villepin wanted to keep the CPE to the bitter end. The CPE protests went as far as they went because of Villepin's unwillingness to cave in. On the right-wing, upon understanding the extent of the pressure, it is Sarko who wanted the CPE to be thrown out. Just like his mentor Balladur threw out the CIP in 1994.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

no worries, villepin bowed to the pressure from the right who bowed ffrom the pressure from the street.

[DAVOUT]

Despite having a supposedly precise role in the government, Sarko talked about everything, in that peremptory tone. Tranportation. Education. Justice (justice! He's the ****ing police minister FFS, and was threatening the judges). Turkey membership. Pretty much everything, or at least every hot topic, HE expressed HIS ideas, often pressuring the rest of the government (including the adequate minister, who actually has a clue about what really happens) either to follow, or to strongly oppose what its main minister said.

IIRC Sarkozy was officially nominated “Ministre d’Etat” ET “Ministre de l’Intérieur et de l’Aménagement du Territoire ». « Ministre d’Etat » is an honorary role giving precedence on all other ministers ; he has no control over an Administrative department. In this capacity he attends the weekly “Conseil des Ministre”. As you know, those meetings are quite strictly organized : ministers concerned by an item of the agenda are invited by the Président de la République to begin to speak on that subject. Then, following an old usage, the “Ministre d’Etat”, if there is one, never more, or rarely, are offered to comment, if they want.
As a consequence, with two Administrative departments, Sarkozy has the right and power to express two ministries point of view on two areas; and as a “Ministre d’Etat” autorized to express himself in the “Conseil des Ministres”, feels of course authorized to express himself on any subject anywhere. This is why all ordinary ministers do not object when a “Ministre d’Etat” talked about his department’s matters.

Although you could be right on some of the critics you make on Sarkozy, you can accept the idea that the other candidate was not more acceptable for many voters. This resulted in more than 2 millions votes for Sarkozy. I cannot imagine that you have another solution for these voters. In fact, I admire your capacity to express a political opinion when I remember that you are one of the last living commies in Europe.

[Ramo]

Meh. Can't say I like any of the candidates (including Bayrou) all that much.

Any chance that Sarko'll be able to get rid of France's farm subsidies, or is that pretty much a third rail?

[LDiCesare]

Reading that whole thread from the start, I'm quoting a bit late, but here goes:

Of course the best way to solve the housing problems of the poor, is to addrress their employment problems.

I'm not sure. There are many employed people who can't find a housing. There are many not poor people who can't find adequate housing either. It's blatant around Paris but is also true in other parts of the country.

One point I keep wondering is what Sarko expects with his 'no taxes on extra hours'. I'm supposed to work 35-38.5h per week. I hardly ever work less than 8 hours a day, even now when I've only 7 days of work left to do in my current firm. From my point of view, extra hours never get paid, so what is his talk about?
I think Sarkozy won on his own charisma whereas Royal lost because she failed to have anyone think of her as a leader. Almost half of htose who voted for her, myself included, voted for her because they didn't want Sarkozy, not because they thought she'd be a good president.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ramo
Meh. Can't say I like any of the candidates (including Bayrou) all that much.

Any chance that Sarko'll be able to get rid of France's farm subsidies, or is that pretty much a third rail?

Even if he'd like that, Poland would never agree. And after a couple of years we'll get 100% of farm subsidies, not 25% as now, so EU will have to pump even more money into us

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm not surprised that you think so. You are a dyed in the wool sarkozyst: you are an extremist of free-market reforms (your libertarian stance is well known), and you're a bigot against the banlieues. Obviously, with his speeches, you gotta love him, and hope that he does whatever he wants.

show me evidence where he said he is against minorities - he is one himself!

First, Sarkozy is very much a majority. He's white. He's upper class. He won a clear political victory. He's of average age. In France, being of foreign origin makes barely any difference as long as it doesn't show on your face. Except that it can give you political arguments.

Secondly, I don't think Sarkozy's a racist. I don't think he hates racial minorities, just like I don't think he outright hates the poor. However, in his speeches, in his approach to power, in his approach to the only actual crisis he had to manage (the riots), he showed that he divides France in two sides. "Those who get up early", and the leeches (he never used the word "leech" AFAIK, but he used a variety of words to give that idea).
The leeches can be pretty much anything the general populace doesn't like: Racailles, obviously. But also illegal immigrants. Civil servants (who're all lazy, that's why only half of them will get replaced as they go into retirement). The unemployed, who obviously leech off those who work. Cheaters in the subway.
Curiously enough, I've never heard him attack tax-dodgers, despite them costing about €40 billion to France, which is our yearly deficit.

Basically, during his whole tenure, and during his campaign, he created a conflict between two Frances. And I haven't heard him say something nice, or something moderating, about the bad side. Not once.

The two boys that got fried in Clichy's electric post? They were known by the police for repeated theft. (read: "they were thugs anyway". Also, it's perfectly false).

The guy who didn't pay his subway ticket, and whose ticket-control led to the mini riots in Gare du Nord? Either you're on the side of the fraudsters, or you're on the side of those who pay their tickets; I'm on the side who pays their ticket! (never mind the fact that the control was getting so ugly, the paying passengers offered to pay the bill)

In short, Sarkozy created two Frances, making them conflict against each other, and he explained to one of those Frances, the moral one, that he was their candidate, against the bad guys. And for political gain, he'll do anything against the "bad guys", as long as it reinforces his votes among the "good guys". It's no surprise that his votes so largely come from the old (page 3) people, who're more likely to be moralistic voters.

During the riots, he was the one who wanted direct confrontation against the racailles. Fortunately, Villepin forbade him. That's why the weapons weren't out. Nonetheless, he seethed that he was barred from using direct force against the rioters. Considering how he saw them (he made no difference between those who threw rocks, and those who tried to kill people), it's patently clear that he'd have made a clear case of tyranny of the majority against the rioters, instead of letting justice work.

With illegal immigrants, he gave clear orders in all districts, that they had a quota to fill. He insisted not to care about human-rights associations (opposed to the way it occured), and obtain the result demanded. It's only when the human rights associations managed to embarass him that he threw a bone (6000 regularisations, when more than 20,000 filled the requirements).
Otherwise, the illegal immigrants deserved whatever happened to them: indignant arrestations (I know several stories), indignant detentionary conditions. As long as it wasn't a mediatic embarassment, it wasn't a problem.

--------------------------

So, he's clearly the president of one France, which he built against the other. And he won't relish at oppressing that "bad" France, whenever he needs a boost within "good" France.

But there's not only that. Sarko ascribes to a "cesarist" view of democracy. I.e a view where the elected leader has legitimacy to do whatever he wants, as long as the people don't vote him out. This obsession with electoral legitimacy was very clear during his row against Villepin: Villepin has never been elected, and Sarkozy had him in contempt for that. This is also very clear when he makes small meetings where he can discuss with the audience: very often, when someone in the assistance says something unpleasant, he shuts that person up, because that person doesn't represent anybody. That's his position toward human rights associations. I've seen him do exactly that on TV during the riots. At the same time, I saw him respect his opponents who ranked as high as him - problem is, he now ranks above everybody.

Not only does he consider that electoral legitimacy is immense, and allows to hold in contempt those who don't have it, he is also strongly for personalization of politics. For the past 5 years, he's been campaigning. It's always "I", "I", "I". France is supposed to be "we". A government (that thing he belonged to for almost all of the past 5 years) is supposed to be "we". Not with Sarko.

Despite having a supposedly precise role in the government, Sarko talked about everything, in that peremptory tone. Tranportation. Education. Justice (justice! He's the ****ing police minister FFS, and was threatening the judges). Turkey membership. Pretty much everything, or at least every hot topic, HE expressed HIS ideas, often pressuring the rest of the government (including the adequate minister, who actually has a clue about what really happens) either to follow, or to strongly oppose what its main minister said.

Not only that, but he cumulated the interior ministry, the presidency of the Hauts de Seine district (France's richest), and the presidency of the UMP. It was all about him, and he didn't hide it.


Those are the many clues that lead me to believe he won't hesitate to oppress the minority when need arises. Not "minority" in the sense of racial or political minority (he's not stupid enough to do a blunder like this). But "minority" in the sense of that "bad" France, which is a convenient punching ball whenever the voters have to rally around the flag.
Combine that with an exaggerated belief in electoral legitimacy, and a very personalized view of politics, and you'll end up with someone who'll do whatever he wants until the next election, if there aren't any counterweights.

The more you talk about this guy, Spiff, the more I seem to like him.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
he is pro europe and wants to continue building it:
1. new treaty reforming the european insitutions on the basis of the ideas layed out on the failed constitution
2.wants to improve functioning of the euro zone
3. wants to increase european industrial cooperation
4. wants to create a european preference system where goods produced elswhere not up to environmental standards are not prefered.

it seems i won't be able to support what he does, no matter how many brown people he arrests.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Wrong about Reagan right abut W.

Cato Report

Did you even read that link? The graph shows total government spending for only Reagan's first three years but even that fudged graph shows total government spending increasing 6.8% per year for the first three years. I notice it completely ignores Reagan's massive deficits. In any event your claim is debunked by your own link.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/cbo_outlays_percent_gdp.png

That link shows what really happened with the national budget from 1965-2005 (a 30 year period). Please notice Reagan's term was 1980-1988 which saw HUGE increases in government spending along with HUGE decreases in government tax revenue. Basically, it is just the same failed policies of borrow and spend Republicanism which has landed us in debt up to our ears.

[Dinner]

Sarko's protectionist "prefrence system" won't fly and will get shot down by trading partners and the WTO.