The goodby of Chirac

I have heard of it. And I just want to add my two cents to the election.

Ségolene Royal, the name - and here comes a really good comparison I copied ;) - just sounds for me like a Caviar-Crab Sandwich, and this is meant negative ;). Apart from that, someone who bases his election campaign on being a woman and leftist, cannot be elected. (Hi to Hillary ;)).

Sarkozy is - for me - like Bush, unelectable. His programms seem to have good intention, but are way too extreme. I think, if he gets elected we will see quite a few more Clichy-Sous-Bois.

So that means Bayrou is my favourite. He does seem to have the best programme also. But I must say that I am not at all an expert on the thing, I'm just interested. ;)

mick
 
Saw it on TV on Sunday night, it was Chirac-ish, ie. seeking grandeur and ending very boring. I'm glad he leaves, he was a rather bad president, despite a few good things (one of his main achievements was ending military service, just in time for me !! :goodjob: ). I hope he faces justice soon ; we need to make our politicians realize that they are not above the rest of us.

Also, everyone who says that Sarkozy has a program, and Royal and Bayrou don't, is just showing his fear of being "beaten" IMO : that's just rubbish. Sarkozy is an inconsistent man who doesn't love his people : he just likes the winners, this is something recurrent in his speech and it's pretty despisable. Speeking of winners, guess who was supporting Edouard Balladur in 1995, when he lost at the 1st round against Chirac and Jospin ? :lol: Moron.
 
Steph said:
Sunday evening, Jacques Chirac, the French president, declared he would not run for the next presidential election.
Out of curiosity:
Did the news speak about it in your country, and what did they comment?
Click to expand...

Neither Leno nor Conan have had their show yet, I haven't gotten my daily news ;)
 
Goodbye Chirac, Hello Ségolène Royal.

:groucho:
 
Did not hear about it

but will proceed to party anyways

[party]
 
I did not hear about it from regular news, but saw it on the front page of wikipedia. Yes, I actually go to their main page.
 
I'll miss Chirac. While I'll admit I don't know much about his politics, I would imagine him to be the comparative Clinton compared to the next guy.

edit: To answer the question, only on the BBC.
 
kryszcztov said:
Sarkozy is an inconsistent man who doesn't love his people : he just likes the winners, this is something recurrent in his speech and it's pretty despisable.
Click to expand...
I guess everyone hears what he wants to hear anyway. When I listen to his speeches, I think he is rather fair.
One example, when some people were illegaly occupying a building and were put out by the police, they were relocated in a sport facility.
The socialists were shouting that it was immoral, that the government had to do something immediatelyfor these poor guys.
The answer of Sarkozy was "There are some people who have been on the waiting list for new social appartments for months. Would it be fair to make them even longer, and give the priority to the others, simply because they had some famous singers or politicians coming to see them at their sport facility? Should we give special treatment for the one who make it to the news, or be fair for everyone?"

Anyone can interpret this as he wants. You are probably against Sarko from the start and see it as an evidence of his evilness in refusing to help, I'll see it as an evidence he wants to be fair and have the same rules for everyone.

I suppose you have a lot of counter exemples, and I could find lots of counter counter exemples, so I'm not sure trying to convince each other will lead to anything good.

What I dislike with Segolene Royal is how she said for a very long time "I'm listening to the people, and I'll do what they want me to do". A typical example: She was in China, meeting some students. A Chinese female student asked, in a relatively good French by the way, "What are your advantages to run for president?" Royal answer "What do you think it is?"

I dislike it for two reasons:
1) If there is an urgent decision to take, like responding to an attack, I want a president who can take the decision, and not wait 3 months to ask about it.
2) I don't want a president who will do what the people wants him to do, I want a president who will do what is necessary for the country. If you ask people if they want their salary to be double and their working time reduced, I doubt the majority will say "No way!". But would it be good for our economy?

Third reason, she's a socialist.

About Bayrou, I'm afraid his idea of making a union government with both ring and left will be very difficult.

De Gaulle tried it just after the war, with people from every side. It didn't work so well. And I doubt Bayrou is playing in the same league as De Gaulle was.
 
Steph said:
Sunday evening, Jacques Chirac, the French president, declared he would not run for the next presidential election.
Out of curiosity:
Did the news speak about it in your country, and what did they comment?
Click to expand...

They mentioned it. They also said he's reluctant to express his support for Sarkozy, although he's from the same political party.
 
Mercenary82 said:
Good riddens, I'm glad to see that jerk gone. I haven't seen this on TV yet, I think this should have gotten more attention.
Click to expand...

Any particular reason you think he's a jerk?
 
Winner said:
They mentioned it. They also said he's reluctant to express his support for Sarkozy, although he's from the same political party.
Click to expand...
We, he is reluctant as Sarkozy is a kind of rivals, and his "successor". Usually, you don't really like the person who will replace you if you dond't choose him yourself.

But others say the Goodbye of Chirac was a speech about the love of France and the French, a speech of union, tolerance, figthing the extremism, and it was not the place to introduce a support to Sarkozy.

It would be more efficient to let the speech settle a bit, and then give the support later.
 
Pasi Nurminen said:
Any particular reason you think he's a jerk?
Click to expand...
Mercernary82 = Nevada = American
Chirac = disagree about Iraq = not with us = against us = anti american = Anti mercenary82.

--> Mercenary82 = anti Chirac
 
Steph said:
Mercernary82 = Nevada = American
Chirac = disagree about Iraq = not with us = against us = anti american = Anti mercenary82.

--> Mercenary82 = anti Chirac
Click to expand...

I knew that, I was just trying to get him to say it so I could use his own words against him rather than have to make an accusation. I'm sure he's with the Bill O'Reilly Boycott crowd.
 
Mercenary82 said:
What Steph said, also his general corruption such as the Oil for food scandal.
Click to expand...

According to what I've been able to look up, Chirac himself had nothing to do with it and it was the French bureaucracy (part of the government not affiliated with any party and in charge of the day to day runnings of government) was to blame. Chirac himself was innocent.

Besides which, a number of American petroleum companies were implicated in the criminal investigation, but I'm sure you still buy their gas for your car.
 
Chirac was at the very core of the oil for food scandal, it would have been impossible to pull off without his support. Saddam used oil vouchers to bribe Chirac through one of his cronies, Patrick Maugein. This is why Chirac opposed the Iraq war at the UN, so we wouldn't discover his involvement.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38040
 
Mercenary82 said:
Chirac was at the very core of the oil for food scandal, it would have been impossible to pull off without his support. Saddam used oil vouchers to bribe Chirac through one of his cronies, Patrick Maugein. This is why Chirac opposed the Iraq war at the UN, so we wouldn't discover his involvement.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38040
Click to expand...

That article mentions suspicions that Chirac may have benefited from the program. Speculation does not equal proof, particularly when the article is three years old. If he really was at fault, could you not have found a more recent article from a much more reputable source? Or is it that in the jingoism leading up to the invasion and since then, facts have gotten lost in the shuffle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

amadeus
What was the first big news story you remember?
2
Replies
33
Views
748
GoodEnoughForMe
GoodEnoughForMe
Zardnaar
Sick As Dogs Breakfast
2
Replies
30
Views
900
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Ethics of Power
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
danjuno
Jimmy Carter Dies at 100
Replies
15
Views
1K
Graham1
G
Klaus Hergersheimer
That Other Jimmy Carter Topic
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
caketastydelish
caketastydelish
Back
Top Bottom