Skip to comments.Exit polls show Sarkozy has lost in France
Posted on 05/06/2012 10:00:27 AM PDT by Cincinna
French Socialist Francois Hollande appeared headed to victory over President Nicolas Sarkozy, according to exit polls of voters released by Swiss and Belgian news media.
Those polls showed Hollande with 52 to 53 percent of the vote in an election that turned on solutions for Europe's economic crisis amid record unemployment in France.
French voters were still headed to cast their ballots when the exit polls were released in the early evening _ the results of exit polls cannot be published in France until voting ends at 8 p.m., 2 p.m. Eastern _ but the outcome seemed all but certain.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
>>”Hollande officially left her after she lost, and moved in with his new girlfriend, Valerie Trieweiller aka the Rotweiller. She will now be First Lady of France.”<<
Typical, obviously says more about his character & lack of commitment.
I remember some were associating Segolène Royal with Palace of Versailles back in 2007, because of her lastname (Royal) - such personal aggrandizement, for a Socialist.
hmm, there are worse people as “First Lady”. Imagine the wife of Khamenei or wife of Ahmadinejad.. well, at least they are almost “invisible”!
Well the final results was closer than the exit polls which we had to first hear about on twitter cause of anti-free speech rules.
Hollandise sauce squeaked in by 3%. Perhaps the “centrist” François Bayrou’s endorsement of Hollandise sauce made the difference. Another week and maybe Sark could have made up the difference, he erased a sizeable lead that H sauce once held.
Europe is in store for some dark days.
Either the socialists will admit they have to cut spending or they will be crashing that country like a plane nose first. The slow crash will become a nose dive with his proposals.
H sauce is talking big talk against austerity. Maybe Jerry Brown should give him a call.
Correct, but he never switched. He started with socialists and ended with socialists. He didn’t move from right to left, but from left to left.
Marechal Pétain, a fascist, was the Nazi collaborator who headed the Vichy government. It was his young assistant, François Mitterrand, who was responsible for forcing French Jews to wear the yellow Star of David, then supervised the deportation of French Jews to Nazi death camps.
After the Allied victory in Europe, Pétain was tried and executed as a traitor. Mitterrand hid his past, went over to the left and the Socialist Party, and the rest is history.
My point is that the Nazis are the Left. The Left still hates Jews to this day. The Left loves corpratism and crony capitalism, etc. Don’t buy the Nazi/KKK = Right Wing lie. In America the KKK is an institution made up wholly of Democrats.
The Nazis are national socialists, but only to distinguish them from communists and other socialists. They all fight for the minds of the very same demographic and have overlapping goals. The “international” aspect of communism is a myth as well. Every successful communist movement built upon nationalism and used nationalism to win and hold power.
Nazi = communist = socialist = progressive. It’s all a club in which only the patrons think they’re different.
Many on the Left are atheist Jews, who hate Zionists and religious Jews more than anything else.
I guess you slept through History 101, especially the WWII part.
Just checked out this thread again, and thought to chime in.
Fascism (since WW1) usually combines left & right wing spectrum of politics, or political views.
And, you’re right, that its basis is “nationalism” or “dictatorial/authoritarian nationalism”.
Whereas communism or socialism, generally, promotes an “egalitarian” society & equality as an ideology, Fascism believes in an innate superiority of a certain group or race, while trying to eliminate or purge the society of those consider ‘inferior’ - at least that’s the General ideology/stance of quite a few far-right “fascist” groups.
Don’t know specifically about KKK in the US. But, during WWII in Europe, Fascism was definitely leaning towards the Right-wing political view, not the left.
Perhaps, a good example of core (bookish) ideology of “Socialism” can be found in the traditional French national motto, after the French Revolution (once the monarch was guillotined):
Liberté, égalité, fraternité
(Liberty, equality, fraternity)
The Left/Right political spectrum is an invention of the Left. It’s propaganda to divide communists from fascists. They’re one and the same ideologically. Look at their platforms and behaviors. They’re the same. It served the Comintern to move away from the Nazis. It gave them cover, but did not and doesn’t reflect the political reality of either system.
They appeared as enemies only because they were fighting for the exact duplicate political turf. Ideologically they’re from the same side of a liberty - slavery spectrum as it relates to government. That spectrum is the true spectrum.
See here for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcYBO_JmkcQ
The goals of fascists and communists are control over individuals the fine definitions are the delight of professors, intellectuals and liberals. Thinking people know better.
Fascists aren’t rightwing. They’re leftwing - socialists, national socialists, but the USSR was violently nationalistic as well. Look at their history. Nazis and Communists are leftists.
If you and I are “rightwing”, yet, speaking just for myself, I love liberty and republicanism. I respect the rule of law and laws that respect Natural Law and individual liberty. An example would be the US Constitution, as written, not as implemented in the 20th century.
Here’s an excellent backgrounder and full explanation by Hayek:
Nazism is Socialism*
Published in the spring of 1933
*This memorandum may be found in the Hayek Paper, box 105, folder 10, Hoover Institution Archives.
>>”The Left/Right political spectrum is an invention of the Left.”<<
In the US it may be. In essence, it really isn’t. You need to look at it in context, as with every thing else.
>>”If you and I are rightwing, yet, speaking just for myself, I love liberty and republicanism. I respect the rule of law and laws that respect Natural Law and individual liberty. An example would be the US Constitution, as written, not as implemented in the 20th century.”<<
For you personally, I respect it. For the US Constitution and liberty the same.
However, you have to remember that the US & its Constitution are unique to America (USA) as the latter was written, a couple of centuries ago, and it is unique to the American (US) history, culture & nation - not every single (other) nation (in Europe, for example).
The “other” Context:
Fascism in Europe during WW2 was a Rightwing political movement. Most Nazis, unlike the Soviets (socialists), were not atheists; they were Christians, most with Christian beliefs & practices. But, at that time, in Europe, it went so horribly wrong. They believed they were “superior” to the minority, in Nazis’ case, the Jews. Did the Soviets love the Jews? No. But, nor did the (orthodox christian) Czarists in Russia!
For the record, my husband is a Conservative, Republican American. I fully understand & appreciate the Conservative American point of view and share it. But, there is another world out there.. often with a different history & certainly a much older one than the USA.
I will read through that. Thanks
Ma’am I appreciate your answers, but they’re incorrect. The political spectrum that you’re referring to is an invention of the 20th century. It originates from 18th century French socialist thinking. It’s meaningless which is also a hallmark of socialist thinking - undefined and redefined words.
Note that just as the 20th century ended conservatives, like us, went from true blue to red. Now socialists are blue. Who decided that? The MSM. I wasn’t polled and didn’t vote for that change. Much the same occurred at the end of the 19th century with Classical liberals become “conservatives” or “reactionaries” while totalitarians became “liberals”. Nonsense like this is what confuses people.
Going back to France in the Revolutionary period, you had socialists v. monarchists. There were most certainly people like you and I alive and with some understanding - see Bastiat - that either extreme was unsound and absurd. I presume you’re college educated and that this is spectrum you were taught and feel grounded in.
The real divide is between those who would enslave and those who would liberate. That ideal is found in a republic, founded on laws based on Natural Law and Christian values. The rest is curtains on a window. Socialists, monarchists, collectivists, progressives, liberals, Nazis, fascists et al have a single purpose - enslavement. It’s as old as time. Nazis have nothing in common with classical liberals. Read the Hayek essay and take a look at the video. I think you’ll see it clearly then.