1. Are you ready for the Galaxy S20? Here is everything we know so far!

Socialist Francois Hollande is the new French President

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by ElasticNinja, May 6, 2012.

  1. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert
    Thread Starter

    BBC News - Socialist Francois Hollande wins French presidency

    I think its great news, Sarkozy was not the leader Europe or France needed. Hollande is not a particularly inspiring character, but he certainly instils hope, hope of recovery and change. I certainly dont agree with many of his policies - a retirement age of 60 will always be ridiculous in my mind, and he'll never find the money for half the stuff. The way Sarkozy played to the far right with xenophobic messages sickened me too - he could've chased the centre vote. Too many Muslims in France - maybe if France hadnt sent so many colonists to North and West Africa in the first place that could not sound completely and utterly bigoted.

    But yeah, President Hollande sounds good to me.

  2. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    In before the "OMG, teh Socialists are coming! Hide yo wife hide yo children!" American-exceptionalism-really-revealing-American-ignorance post.

    Socialism, communism, capitalism, they're all ideas that rely on man to maintain. That being the case, I think they all can succeed and falter. Americans (myself included) like to believe that we have the best system in place, but like most systems maintained by man, eventually human nature twists the system the system fails.

    The French people have demonstrated that they have no blind loyalty to any particular system, and that beats blindly following a system to its gridlocked end IMO. I'm sure most Americans identify socialism as a dirty word, but what they need to realize is that it's the common French citizen that has decided enough is enough and has voted for drastic change. As an American, I can appreciate the desire for change. It keeps our leaders honest and on edge. Viva la revolution.
  3. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Android Expert
    Thread Starter

    Socialist Parties in Europe haven't been socialist since 1970. This guy is more of a social democrat. Still, only the second Socialist President since Mitterrand, the rest have all been right leaning.
  4. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    The local reports here claim the new president wants to tax the rich to help with their debt. That's enough for our local politicians to scream, 'Socialist!' Hell Newt Gingrich thinks Obama is the most 'radical' president in our country's history and I ask myself, 'more radical than the president that took us to 2 wars, gave tax cuts to the rich, enacted the largest socialist move in our history by bailing out the banks thus almost bankrupting us?' I don't think there is really a pure democratic super power out there. I think they're for the most part hybrids of other systems.
  5. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Android Expert

    I note the CAC was up nicely, it appears the capitalist are voting with their money. :hahaha:
  6. Now only if Americans were smart enough to elect a socialist president or at least the equivalent of a Social Democrat. Unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
  7. persim

    persim Guest

    We already did that in 2008, not working out too well.
  8. No, we didn't. Obama is far from either a true Socialist or social Democrat.
  9. persim

    persim Guest

    From the Wiki:

    Social democracy supports legal entitlements in social rights for citizens. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: workers' compensation, universal health care, universal education, and other services such as child care and care for the elderly.

    If this doesn't describe our current president's ideology, I'm not sure what does.

    Following this political board for a while and occasionally posting in it, I have come to the conclusion that most people are set in their beliefs pretty firmly. No matter how many articles are referenced to make one's point, there is always a counter reference that rebuts it.

    You appear to want a socialist president and I do not. Nothing you or I say will probably ever change each others minds so I will not debate it. I think this is just a complete difference in opinion on how the world should work. We happen to disagree and I am glad we have the ability to do that. But that doesn't stop me from being scared to death that someone like you is out there and wants the US to run this way.

    Back to topic, I'm not exactly sure how Francois Hollande being president now changes anything or instills hope. France still has a population that barely wants to work and is not willing to enact the austerity measures needed to see it through it's current economic problems. Calls for taxing the rich at 75% may have got him elected but it is certainly not a cure and the people will find this out soon enough.
  10. copestag

    copestag Android Expert

    this is the problem that most socialists fail to recognize....... and most democrats as well

    eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend........ if you taxed the 'rich' at 100% you still wouldnt cover the bills
  11. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Android Expert

    The problem most national socialist fail to recognize, as well as most republicans is that impoverishing the population will cause society and governments to fail.

    Just look at high income disparity societies such as Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc...​
  12. copestag

    copestag Android Expert

    indeed......... its far better to have no disparity........ everyone should have equal amounts of nothing...... such as your role model country Cuba
  13. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    A concentration of wealth can only lead to gridlock and a veiled version of slavery, whereas complete parity leads to complacency which promotes lethargy and can inhibit personal growth.

    A system where competition is encouraged and is necessary but where our weakest and most helpless are taken care of is not a pipe dream, but it requires a healthy middle class. In order to have a healthy middle class, guess what, there has to be a re-distribution of wealth. If you wonder where all the wealth is, go look at all the record profits being made by our large corporations.

    Now I personally don't want to live in a country where my hard earned dollars are taxed to such an extent that I wonder "Why in the hell do I bother working hard every day?", but I also know that the higher you go up the ladder of top income earners, the more skewed you'll find the definition of "hard work". I bet if we followed around the top 1%-2% wage earners around for a week while they're at "work", we'd learn real fast that a week of what most of them do is in no way worth more money than the average person makes in a year. Of course we're conditioned that the top earners earn every red cent they pay themselves and taught not to question it. I'd personally like to see some transparency if they're making all that money because as a consumer of some of these large corporations, I'd like to know I'm getting my money's worth.
  14. This is a pointless argument because nobody wants to tax the rich at 100% or even close to that figure. Libertarians love to pull out the Laffer Curve which predicts that as taxation rises, tax revenue decreases, but instead of favoring a top tax rate close to the curve's equilibrium point, they whine about higher taxes being "unfair" or "punishment."
  15. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Android Expert

    Cuba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Many find Castro's biggest sin is, "closed down the mafia-controlled gambling industry. The CIA conspired with the Chicago mafia in 1960 and 1961 to assassinate Fidel Castro, according to documents declassified in 2007.[62][63]"

    Cuba under Castro is just your typical dictatorship, not a democratic government.

Share This Page