That does not address the history of terrorist attacks in France in the last few years. Radicalized French citizens, born of immigrants from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc., have been the main culprits. So your "for starts" doesn't begin to address the problem. Instead it only provides propaganda for those who wish to further radicalize young French men. It is insulting to say that people who have lived through the horrors of the attacks in Paris and Nice prefer "rolling over" to terrorists by not electing the daughter of a Nazi sympathizer who, years ago, preferred Jews to Muslims as her boogeyman of choice.
Yes, the popular vote would look different if it actually determined the presidency. For example, I think voter turnout would be higher since everyone's vote counts exactly the same regardless of state residency (i.e. the concept of a "swing state" is eliminated). As far as campaigning changes though, I'm not sure if we'd see much change there. I'm going to guess the majority of people didn't vote for a candidate based on whether or not the candidate visited their city or at least state.
Yeah, I know it's been said already, but you can't compare our election to this French election. Even if you somehow want to equate Trump with LePen, HRC and Marcon could not be more different. He was a fresh baguette from the oven. She was an old half-chewed loaf of bread now so dry that even the mold on it had died. (With apologies to Madame Secretary ). Anyway, I don't like the "French voters are smarter / less crazy / less xenophobic." No, like Americans, they wanted a fresh face, and like Americans, they voted for someone who'd never been in politics.
I think their campaigning would certainly change. Candidates of certain parties often ignore issues that would matter to a state they weren't going to win anyway. As an example, if every vote counted in a popular vote election style, I think the Republican party would likely moderate on Climate Change (a la The Governator) because there are millions of votes in California that they could siphon even if they couldn't win the state.
It's the Republican Front. When you have a radical in the runoff, the moderates band together to lock the radical out. It's sad that LePen made the runoff, but not surprising she got trounced there. As for terrorism, I don't see why anyone should second-guess their vote when it happens. There is no reason to think LePen would dp a better job on it. It is strange to see. I read a sort of alt-right intellectual's piece about how to think about Vladimir Putin and his popularity in Russia that cast him as the hero of national self-determination for Russia, saying we should at least be understanding of how important he is to Russian identity. They also seem to like Duterte for telling the Americans to eff-off. And of course Brexit and LePen and the other European reactionaries. But why so interested in other countries supposedly defending their own nationalist interests? Is this altruism? They just want what's best for other countries? Because, if nationalist policies is what's best for them, shouldn't we prefer they continue to be globalists so an America-First United States can gain competitive advantage?
That's not 100% correct. Macron has been in an advising function to his predecessor Francois Hollande. About the role Steve Bannon has... but in qualified, sober, intelligent, sensible, empathic, upright, honest, etc.
I'd love to see Castro as Senator, but he's not running. Beto O'Rourke! (he has no chance, but he should) Well, at least you didn't say "bagel".
I work for a French company and know many French people. This election dos not surprise me at all. I mean they have actually elected a socialist before if that tells you anything.
It tells me they have done a great job before. Though in truth some of the Socialist candidates have been less than spectacular. Some have been fantastic, though. It isn't rare for European nations to elect a socialist candidate and also to thrive under that leadership.
FB, I know a person like Bernie who promises free everything and someone else will pay for it and high taxes for the true earners is your dream but there is this little thing known as reality that creeps in the way. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. https://www.thenewamerican.com/worl...h-economy-socialists-quash-own-75-percent-tax http://www.cityam.com/article/1389059090/france-s-failed-socialist-experiment-turning-tragedy http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/08/end-of-french-socialism-hollande-elections/
Good point. I suppose I just meant he hadn't been, you know, campaigning off and on for the last 20 years in front of the entire French populace.
It's actually working all over Europe as we speak. As I mentioned in my posts, there have been some really poor candidates from the socialist party. Free everything and someone else paying for it isn't any kind of a dream of mine. I understand that government services are paid for by taxpayers exactly like myself and my family.
I agree. I just mention it because he's an outsider like Trump in that he hasn't run for political office before, but he's not like Trump in that he actually understands something about how government works.
An "old half-chewed loaf of bread now so dry that even the mold on it had died" who would be a vast improvement over the current occupant of the White House. A "loaf of bread" who would have nominated moderate/progressive Americans to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court and other Federal judicial openings. A "loaf of bread" who wouldn't be busy attempting to dismantle the EPA and other vital agencies that her opponent in the recent election sees as an impediment to the rich getting richer, and who doesn't believe in climate change. A "loaf of bread" who wouldn't have our friends and allies in an uproar over having to deal with a man who is a compulsive liar and clearly, in my opinion, increasingly unstable. A man seemingly in love with a power hostile to the United States and those friends and allies of ours, a hostile power that, in my opinion and in the opinion of an increasing number of other Americans, effectively interfered with our democratic election last November, something that would, or should, be seen as a clear and present danger to the United States if the current (and future) investigations are allowed to obtain and follow the evidence of that interference. The man in the Oval Office appears to be determined to prevent those investigations, if he can. I would gladly have that "old half-chewed loaf of bread" as president over the bizarre man the nation and the world are now coming to grips with. Frankly, it's tiring to continue use to read slams of Secretary Clinton when our country is in the midst of a national crisis involving the last election and the man "elected" to the most powerful position in the world. It also isn't funny. None of this is funny, B-Bob, something, humor aside, I'm confident that you would agree with.
