Should Marine Le Pen be Elected as President of France?

Marion Anne Perrine Le Pen, known as Marine Le Pen, is a French lawyer and politician. She is the president of the National Front, a political party in France. She has vocalized her nationalistic views and patriotism to her native France, and has been a strong opponent to Islam.

  • Yes! Viva la France!

  • No!

56% 19 votes
44% 15 votes
  • She not perfect, however. . . Le Pen remains the only candidate who stands by the belief that the French government should be interested first in the French people. Endless streams of refugees have been bringing subsequently endless streams of problems. There is but one potential president willing to take the hard actions against it.

  • Oui! Elle est ressemblant Robespierre ou Danton. Une ennemie de la elite progressif insolent. Viva la France! Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite!!!!

  • Viva La France!

  • Away from the EU (fourth reich) and stop the human garbage coming into the country.

  • I will only repond with a quote from both candidates : Marine Le Pen : We must fight terrorism , if we have our minds set on it we shall win. Emmanuel Macron: We must get used to living with terrorism in our cities. For me the choise was easy

  • No, I think she's objectively bad. She's an attack dog for the elite, don't be fooled into thinking the 'liberal elite' is a thing. The elite is right-wing and is conservative, she represents that elite, granted she puts on, very much, an 'anti-establishment' vibe, but she will be disastrous for France #VoteMelenchon

  • She will tear apart the EU

  • Marine Le Pen is the French Trump, and unless you want the Eiffel Tower to burn and the Arc de Triomphe to be bombed by ISIS, don't vote for Le Pen.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2017-04-21T18:06:29.3240858Z
On April 20, 2017, France experience another terrorist attack by an Islamic Fundamentalist leaving two wounded and one killed. President Donald Trump made a statement regarding the disaster stating it would have a "...Big effect effect on Presidential election!" and certainly so. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/21/donald-trump-predicts-big-effect-on-marine-le-pen-presidential-run-in-france/
TheSocialist says2017-04-21T19:56:55.3688820Z
She represents the elite. Everything about her is corrupted, pro-establishment, unpatriotic, and anti-human. I'll never vote for her #VoteMelenchon
Mharman says2017-04-22T01:26:33.3699040Z
@TheSocialist: No, she isn't. She is going to drain the swamp and Make France Great Again, just like Trump has done with America.
reece says2017-04-22T03:26:03.2079040Z
@Mharman I hope that's a joke.
TheSocialist says2017-04-22T13:28:47.4154972Z
@Mharman I suppose appointing a cabinet of oil barons, bankers, and unqualified nutbags is draining the swamp?
Mharman says2017-04-22T13:39:00.4267070Z
You guys are reacting the same way you did with Trump; fearmongering everything, calling him a nutcase and all that.
TheSocialist says2017-04-22T14:02:48.1918972Z
@Mharman no, I'm calling Marine LePen out for what she is; a fascistic, lunatic, and an establishment candidate
LuciferWept says2017-04-22T17:58:56.7788510Z
I don't think you can actually define Fascism.
Anonymous says2017-04-22T19:15:35.6571404Z
@TheSocialist - How could one be unpatriotic if one is nationalistic? Le Pen is the most patriotic Frenchwoman France has seen in their modern history.
LuciferWept says2017-04-22T19:49:54.8744510Z
@Sciguy....Don't you know that unpatriotic and fascistic are terms to describe anybody who is not Progressive. F*** the actual issues, she needs to pander to the corporate elite who wish to import cheap labor from the Middle East, I mean be Human. She needs to disassemble French culture and history, I mean be patriotic. Melenchon promises to do all these things!
LuciferWept says2017-04-22T20:00:05.8779404Z
@Sciguy...Don't you know all the bad things she'll do! She won't import millions of low-wage laborers- I mean refugees - from the Middle East to pander to corporate elites. Instead, she'll see that those jobs go to French citizens. How unpatriotic! She won't adhere to wonderful Progressive values, like disregarding French history. After all, what has France ever contributed to philosophy, politics, or economics? Nothing! Not like all those wonderful Socialists in Germany - no wait, that didn't work out well - all those wonderful Socialists in Russia - wait, that was even worse - all those wonderful socialists in China - wow, I just can't win - all those wonderful Progressive socialists in Sweden! Yeah, Sweden, where women are being culturally enriched by refugees! You should want that for France. Melenchon does.
Mharman says2017-04-22T20:16:07.1984510Z
Actually, Socialist: She's taking down the big government establishment.
reece says2017-04-22T22:42:19.0455404Z
@Mharman Just like Trump?
Mharman says2017-04-22T22:55:39.0308510Z
Yup.
reece says2017-04-22T23:00:25.0707404Z
Haha! Don't make me laugh.
LuciferWept says2017-04-23T00:16:57.0104510Z
@Mharman Yeah, don't you know how horrible Trump is. He's a FASCIST!!! He is racist against Muslims and sexiest to women, which Progressives are NOT! He also wants to deport millions of cheap labor so Democrat donors have to pay higher wages to American citizens. Isn't that the most horrible, unpatriotic, nationalistic thing some one would do!
Mharman says2017-04-23T00:46:19.0148510Z
Oh no, LuciferWept is one of THOSE snowflakes who have been so easily manaipulated...
LuciferWept says2017-04-23T01:57:17.2942817Z
No I am not. I am strong. Now, you have triggered me so I must go get a coloring book and retreat to my safe space.
reece says2017-04-23T06:50:30.5062817Z
Just look at the people Trump appointed. What a couple of dunces you two are. Trump is using the swamp as lubricant so he can use a branch as a substitute to how small his d!Ck is.
LuciferWept says2017-04-23T14:03:06.5113151Z
Yet you refuse to provide an actual example, opting instead for ad hominems. Don't get me wrong, ad hom is fun, but it only works if you have an actual argument along with it.
Mharman says2017-04-23T18:50:48.8657428Z
His appointees are fine. You can call them nuts, but you have no idea.
reece says2017-04-24T01:37:12.1417944Z
Gary Cohn, Steven Mnuchin, Jay Clayton, Steve Bannon, all former alumni of Goldman Sachs. Then you have people like Betsy DeVos (States Secretary of Education) (a billionaire) who doesn't believe in evolution and wants to bring back the 'kingdom of God'. She also doesn't believe in public schools. So like I said, Trump's using the swamp as lube.
reece says2017-04-24T01:43:20.8321944Z
An argument isn't needed if you're that retarded.
reece says2017-04-24T06:48:02.4761255Z
I should of just said alumni without the 'former'. It's almost like saying the Sahara desert.
DavidMGold says2017-04-24T09:22:18.8921255Z
LuciferWept, you should know full well that left wingers usually confuse attitude for argument in this regard. On a side note, very amusing to see a socialist denouncing cabinet picks (???) as "unqualified" while cheerleading a radical Trotskyist who would undoubtedly appoint other crackpots to positions of power.
reece says2017-04-24T10:11:08.7125255Z
@DavidMGold, what echo chamber have you crawled out of?
Mharman says2017-04-24T11:59:42.6797255Z
Are you scared of rich people and creationists?
reece says2017-04-24T19:29:54.2900027Z
Mharman, I'm afraid of greed and stupidity.
Mharman says2017-04-24T19:35:24.9008027Z
Being a businessman doesn't make you greedy; being a creationist doesn't make you stupid.
reece says2017-04-24T19:42:03.3716027Z
Look at their history for ****'s sake!
Anonymous says2017-04-24T20:16:26.8460027Z
If you want to make insinuations about religion and intelligence along with how they correlate perhaps we show consider what horrendous acts have been committed in the name of atheism. Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union utilized atheism to the extent of practicing it as a philosophy- murdering millions in the process. Atheism only acts as a conduit of free-roaming power with little ways to measure morality. It is better to fear a man in the sky and fear what outcome you may receive due to your actions, though he may not exist at all, then go about being your own god.
Mharman says2017-04-24T20:33:10.5411220Z
Businessmen have been contributing and helping the economy for as long as business has been a thing that exists. Meanwhile, creationists didn't do stuff like have wild gay orgies.
DavidMGold says2017-04-24T21:05:52.2812027Z
Reece, you're not afraid of greed (Hillary Clinton) or stupidity (Maxine Waters). I'll send Hillary an eye patch and you can sit on her shoulder. :D
reece says2017-04-24T21:13:07.1780027Z
@DavidMGold I'm not a conservative.
reece says2017-04-24T21:18:46.1192027Z
@Mharman 1) Goldman Sachs admittedly defrauded investors in the 2008 crash. 2) You don't want a religious fundamentalist who doesn't believe in public schooling being the States Secretary of Education.
reece says2017-04-24T21:25:40.0496027Z
@Mharman can you actually do some research please.
Mharman says2017-04-25T00:05:57.8184486Z
LOL. Self-righteos liberal tells me to do research when he's too lazy to do it himself. Anyways, Goldman Sachs was punished accordingly. Also how do you know those people in particular were involved in it, or knew it was going on? If you watch CNBC's American Greed, you'll notice how only the boss knows about it, and he fools even his employees. The boss makes the decisions. And just who is the boss of that company? George Soros. And who's campaign did he fund? Hillary's. As for Devos, I don't see anything wrong with being a Christian fundamentalist. And no, she does believe in public schools. She just wants private schools to have some funding as well. Her promise to "Bring God back." is nothing to worry about. You say it's forcing religion down kids' throats, yet with your regulations (on religion is schools), kids are having atheism shoved down their throats! For example, you take a test, and even if you're a Christian, you have to check the "13.5 Billion Years" checkbox in order to get the question right. But if you check the "6,000 years" checkbox, you get the question wrong. A much better system is one where both (evolutionism and creationism) are taught and the kids decide.
reece says2017-04-25T02:11:02.9160486Z
@Mharman They were punished with a slap on their wrist'. No one went to jail. 'I don't see anything wrong with being a Christian fundamentalist.' -- Mharman. So you praise private schools (for-profit schools) getting funding from the government? That's just as bad as for-profit prisons getting funding from the government. It's called corporate welfare. You wouldn't mind Christian Sharia? What regulations on religious schools? Religious schools are privately owned. I know you're trying to be fair about evolutionism and creationism being tought equally in school, but the truth is, evolution has basis in reality. Which creationism would you teach? There are thousands of religions. Would you teach them all? It would just be waste of time.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T04:58:33.1692486Z
Reece, never claimed otherwise. Keep up...Please?
reece says2017-04-25T10:52:44.5423562Z
Keep up? No, you don't understand. I'm lapping you. I never claimed I was a Hillary supporter, or any other supporter for that matter. What goes around, comes around.
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T11:21:08.3436347Z
Reece, you can't even manage to get your shoes tied and don't seem to catch on very well, but at least your imagination is running wild. :D
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T11:51:02.8423562Z
Reece, why is Bernie paying an effective tax rate of 13.5% on $200,000+ income? :D
reece says2017-04-25T13:29:24.4315562Z
DavidMGold, I guess it goes to show how much you suck.
reece says2017-04-25T13:31:00.0283562Z
DavidMGold, I don't know. Why is he?
DavidMGold says2017-04-25T14:47:40.1568347Z
Reece, the Socialist from Vermont apparently doesn't believe in paying his "fair share" even though the taxpayers pay his salary, which is the only steady paycheck Bernie has managed thoughout his entire life. He claims deductions on things like the mortgage he has on his nearly half a million dollar townhouse in D.C., which his own tax plan would eliminate. In a word, hypocrite. This deadbeat is apparently your choice for planning the entire US economy. :D
LuciferWept says2017-04-25T15:53:53.4580067Z
So this has exploded since I've been gone....For less than 24 hours. Okay, from what I've read of the oh so intellectual arguments between DavidMGold and Sciguy and Mharman up against Reece is a mixture of truth on both sides. And I don't think any one of you is doing credible research on the subject...Granted it is difficult to doubt your own strongly held beliefs enough to challenge them, so no one can call it a character flaw (since we all don't do it often enough). So firstly, Sciguy, you talk about how "Atheism only acts as a conduit of free-roaming power with little ways to measure morality. It is better to fear a man in the sky and fear what outcome you may receive due to your actions, though he may not exist at all, then go about being your own god." I suggest you watch more than the antifeminism videos of your avatar. Christopher Hitchens did a lot of work proving why that train of thought is inherently flawed. Other than that, the Soviet Union also blocked philosophy, and set up a religion of the State. I guarantee that one could not get an unexpurgated copy of Locke or Rousseau in the USSR. Mharman, as much as it hurts to say it, Reese is right when he says that Goldman-Sachs was punished with little more than a slap on the wrist. Granted, the feds were responsible for the collapse in the first place for failing to repeal the CRA, but large corporations did their best to help crash the economy. Meanwhile, what "wild gay orgies"? But seriously, let's not forget our friends in the Catholic Church who were creationists too busy with pedophilic orgies to attend any gay ones. DavidMGold, next time, instead of being witty and trying to imply that Hillary is a pirate, cite examples of Hillary's greed (there's plenty) and Maxine Waters' stupidity (there's plenty more). But, it appears as though you had to be brief, so I think I can forgive you the brief posts. However, many of the stories about Sanders you cite in your last post have been debunked. Certainly the man is incredibly naive when it comes to economics, but he's not a hypocrite like Obama or Hillary. Not saying he's any Jacobin either, as that (surprise!) that party was capitalistic with regulations, and they frowned on people owning more than one residence. Point is, I'm no Berner, but many of the things said about his character are wrong. His policies are enough to be jeered at. Stick to those. Reece, you put up quite a fight against my three amigos. And I can't say I disagree with your rant against private education either. But, for some reason, you abandon this approach against the Trump presidency (which this voting topic isn't even about) to a tangential rant against businessmen and creationists, which opened holes in your argument. Granted, DavidMGold failed to seize on that opportunity and instead opted to just throw insults out and talk about Bernie Sanders.
LuciferWept says2017-04-25T15:56:25.2460067Z
So this has exploded since I've been gone....For less than 24 hours. Okay, from what I've read of the oh so intellectual arguments between DavidMGold and Sciguy and Mharman up against Reece is a mixture of truth on both sides. And I don't think any one of you is doing credible research on the subject...Granted it is difficult to doubt your own strongly held beliefs enough to challenge them, so no one can call it a character flaw (since we all don't do it often enough). So firstly, Sciguy, you talk about how "Atheism only acts as a conduit of free-roaming power with little ways to measure morality. It is better to fear a man in the sky and fear what outcome you may receive due to your actions, though he may not exist at all, then go about being your own god." I suggest you watch more than the antifeminism videos of your avatar. Christopher Hitchens did a lot of work proving why that train of thought is inherently flawed. Other than that, the Soviet Union also blocked philosophy, and set up a religion of the State. I guarantee that one could not get an unexpurgated copy of Locke or Rousseau in the USSR. Mharman, as much as it hurts to say it, Reese is right when he says that Goldman-Sachs was punished with little more than a slap on the wrist. Granted, the feds were responsible for the collapse in the first place for failing to repeal the CRA, but large corporations did their best to help crash the economy. Meanwhile, what "wild gay orgies"? But seriously, let's not forget our friends in the Catholic Church who were creationists too busy with pedophilic orgies to attend any gay ones. DavidMGold, next time, instead of being witty and trying to imply that Hillary is a pirate, cite examples of Hillary's greed (there's plenty) and Maxine Waters' stupidity (there's plenty more). But, it appears as though you had to be brief, so I think I can forgive you the brief posts. However, many of the stories about Sanders you cite in your last post have been debunked. Certainly the man is incredibly naive when it comes to economics, but he's not a hypocrite like Obama or Hillary. Not saying he's any Jacobin either, as that (surprise!) that party was capitalistic with regulations, and they frowned on people owning more than one residence. Point is, I'm no Berner, but many of the things said about his character are wrong. His policies are enough to be jeered at. Stick to those. Reece, you put up quite a fight against my three amigos. And I can't say I disagree with your rant against private education either. But, for some reason, you abandon this approach against the Trump presidency (which this voting topic isn't even about) to a tangential rant against businessmen and creationists, which opened holes in your argument. Granted, DavidMGold failed to seize on that opportunity and instead opted to just throw insults out and talk about Bernie Sanders.
Anonymous says2017-04-25T16:03:43.4968067Z
I can agree with you lucifer. I have watched a many of videos by Christopher Hitchens, even going as far as reading his books. Without any doubt, I am very aware of his lack of belief in and despising of religion and he had every right to. He was a brilliant man nonetheless. Am I not allowed to agree with the majority of his ideas simply due to the fact he had much disdain for religion? I would suggest that you yourself watch some of his videos.
LuciferWept says2017-04-25T18:10:17.9071562Z
I agree with you on that. And I have watched his videos and read "God is Not Great" ("And Yet" is on my list)...
LuciferWept says2017-04-25T18:13:46.5103562Z
But I disagree about how you characterize the Soviet Union as Atheist. They merely replaced God with the State. The problem becomes dogmatic practice, which is the calling card of religion. Instead of consulting philosophy, empiricism, and science, the dogmatic (whether they be Secular or Religious) consult only their narrow dogma, often times abhorring empiricism, censoring philosophy, and meddling with science.
reece says2017-04-25T20:49:58.9747562Z
@LuciferWept In what regard is Sanders naive when it comes to ecanomics? Are you saying over 200 of America's top economists are also naive?
LuciferWept says2017-04-29T23:14:04.8626948Z
@Reece. That's an exaggerated claim to make about 200 "top" economists. The figure I am familiar with is 80 economists endorsed Sanders. And until you can demonstrate how they are top economists (and not just Keynesian parrots), we'll disregard your characterization of them as elites. However, since there are 1500 practicing and respected Economists currently in the United States, and 200 is only 13%, you may want to reevaluate your argument. The man is economically naive, and has no understanding of the chaos rational agents (which is a fundamental principle taught to all economics students) will cause in Bernie's "Utopia" fantasy. Perhaps you should read on economics instead of just believing whatever seems most appealing to you.
reece says2017-04-30T00:35:14.1842948Z
LuciferWept, you didn't answer my first question. If you went onto criticize the 15$/hr minimum wage, then you would of been criticizing the 200+ economists I was referring to -- https://www.democraticunderground.com/1251473645 .
reece says2017-04-30T00:35:54.7442948Z
Do you actually want to get into the specifics, or do you just want to scratch the surface of your safe-space?
LuciferWept says2017-04-30T00:40:56.7303616Z
A safe-space joke from someone who cites a blatantly Democrat and Left-Leaning website. A guy who cannot understand that 13% of a given specialty is not significant enough to make an argument. If 13% of doctors recommended something, I doubt you would do it. But of course, in this case, you stand to gain. The $15 dollar minimum wage does no good to those it pretends to help. Employers will simply lay off workers to afford the price. This is called Economics. Perhaps you should read up on it, and not just Karl Marx. May I suggest Hayek, Smith, and Bastiat. That should be a decent enough base for you to understand what you're talking about. Or are you too scared to question your own beliefs?
reece says2017-04-30T01:11:16.8902948Z
LuciferWept, so you didn't bother to read the substance. How typical. The 15$/hr would gradually be faded in overtime so the economy can adjust to it. What you're reffering to about employers laying off workers is called a race to the bottom if the government allows business owners to get away with it. Just look at the cheap labour in China. By your logic, you would want the labour in America to be cheaper. Is that right?
reece says2017-04-30T01:12:08.2922948Z
Referring*
LuciferWept says2017-04-30T01:33:49.5207616Z
If it has to be faded in, it's not gonna help. The only people it helps are college kids working part-time jobs in summer (incidentally, the same sole group of people debt-free college would benefit). Now, if others aren't laid off, then people who make more than the minimum wage would be charged more to pay for the increased minimum wage. No amount of fading can change that (no, economics is not magic, it's math, which is probably still magic to you). Essentially, you're screwing over other people because you want a free degree and a higher wages for the poor service you provide at McDonald's. Since you want me to read substance, have you read Hayek yet? Smith? Bastiat? No, I think not. They are actual economists, so it's a bit hard. A lot harder than some talentless progressive shill trying to convince me that I should pay more for a Big Mac because he just "wants to help the poor" even though welfare reform and education reform would do that much better. No, prog shills just want more for themselves, no matter who has to pay for it. Now, would you mind telling me why a list of the 13% of economists who support a $15 min wage should matter when (for some reason) they can't get the other 87% on board. BTW, scanning the list, it's amazing how many are professors of History or Politics or Sociology, and not of Economics. HA! Even a few are "Feminist Studies Professors"..You know, "experts" in knowing the difference between a vagina and a penis. These aren't top economists. They're shills for progressive parties. All of them professors who may or may not deal with economics (since not a single Ph.D. Is described). Dude, if you would have had a better argument if you just stuck to Marx. Marx might have been wrong about alot of things, but at least he wasn't deliberately trying to BS everybody else. So, let's take the actual number, which is actually 170..Just found the list, on sanders' own site. (Man, if you're gonna shill, shill with at least semi-correct facts) https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf So, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are currently 21,500 economists in the US. (wow, I was way off on that number.) https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/economists.htm Now, this is where it gets hard my little progressive friend. 170/21500 = .7%. You don't have 13% like I said. I gave you a 12.3% advantage. Hahaha! You can't even get 1 in 100 to support your outlandish claim! I guess you'll just get some of those Feminists to take the place of people who can do math and philosophize.
LuciferWept says2017-04-30T01:35:11.4675616Z
DavidMGold, I believe I owe you an apology.
reece says2017-04-30T02:25:43.6226948Z
LuciferWept, obviously you're vary emotional. Let's start with how 51 percent of a̲l̲l American workers make less than 30,000 dollars a year. So no, not college kids. You seem to want to dodge my questions. Do you favour racing to the bottom? Let's keep this as simple as possible, but not simpler. After we're done with this, I will tell you why you're wrong / hypocritical about criticizing history, politics, and sociology when it comes to economics. You probably think sociology is just some SJW field.
reece says2017-04-30T02:38:37.0095616Z
Very* Sorry for the mistakes.
LuciferWept says2017-04-30T02:48:43.5843616Z
Not emotional, just gloating. First, comment on why you think .7% of economists justifies your claim. Second, Sociology and history are fine fields of their own, but they're not economics. Economics is the mathematical study of choice, a little bit more difficult than history or sociology. Now, when did I say I favor racing to the bottom. It seems to me you believe there are but two answers, a republican answer and a democrat answer. Are you so simple that you cannot imagine anything beyond those two options? 30,000 a year, where's your source. NVM, as usual for this argument, I have done your work for you. Now, the number of workers making $15 and hour or less is 42.4% of all US workers. So, why do you want to punish 57.6% of US workers with higher prices on goods? Oh my source: http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-hour/
reece says2017-04-30T03:43:28.1955616Z
@LuciferWept They were merely a side note. BTW, I didn't claim the 200+ economists endorsed Bernie. You assumed that. Ecanomics encompasses all said fields. You can either be a jack of all trades, or a king of few. Not many people are an ace. I think none are. There is a right answer, and there is a wrong answer. Leave politics out of it, just like science. It just creates division. If you want the status quo, then it's the race to the bottom (like you've been advocating). If you want change (protectionism), then it is regulations that bring a penalty for businesses that move their jobs overseas. What's the third option you can imagine? ...Magic? It just goes to show there is no middle class. You need a middle class for a stable society. But who cares, there is no iceberg. Full steam ahead!
LuciferWept says2017-04-30T04:06:52.2423616Z
So, firstly, economics (that is the proper spelling) is the study of choice: why individuals, firms, and governments make choices, and how those choices can be better. I could go on about Marginal Decision making and all that, but I can tell this is taking a toll on you. So, let's now get on to your bs about what I assume. Did you not say "Are you saying over 200 of America's top economists are also naive?" Now, I have already proven that these were not economists. These were historians, sociologists, and feminists. The source YOU provided says as much. I never said they endorsed Bernie, but endorsed his policies. Now, you make some claim about jack of all trades... Well, it goes to show you're getting a bit too emotional having to defend your idiotic beliefs. Economists are not jack of all trades, their economists. I have no problem with a historian discussing economic issues just as I have no problem with Smith detailing the history of the corporation and Hayek detailing the violence between Italian Fascists and Italian Communists in the 1920s. However, should an economist try to make a political argument based upon psychology, I would be foolish not to go see what psychologists think before I agree with him. Why is it that you are not skeptical? Is it because these historians (not economists), sociologists (not economists) and dogmatists (read: people who make things up) reinforce your own beliefs about the world. You go on to say "Leave politics out of it, just like science." Honestly, I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or sincere. I will assume you are being sarcastic, for if the latter is true I have won the debate. Economics is rooted in philosophy (the oldest science) and mathematics (you know, that discipline you skipped in school that all science is based uses to prove points). So, again, If I was to hear some one discuss something that is out of their realm of expertise, I would be skeptical until I heard it from practitioners of that expertise. No, .7% is not 100%, I am sorry to you that those two figures are not equal. And yes, endorsing a politician's stances is tantamount to endorsing the politician himself. You want another option? How about breaking up the giant corporations that own the majority of businesses. For example, did you know that there was recently a merger between TimeWarner and AT&T. This is the problem that should be solved, by enforcing not only laws which prohibit monopoly, but also oligopoly (a fun economic term for when only a few firms control a market). You want a middle class, that's how you do it. You break up the big corporations. No need for a hike in the min. Wage (the only occasion for that is in the event of inflation) and no real need for protectionism or isolationism. You force them to compete with each other instead of just letting them merge together to avoid competition. Welcome to what happens when you actually read economic texts and not just propaganda spewed out by shills. You want my advice. Read books. Read books by authors who are dead. Dead men can't want anything from you. Why do you think I'm here shilling Hayek, Bastiat, and Smith. They're dead. They no longer have any desires. People who are alive always have an agenda.
reece says2017-04-30T05:04:11.1086877Z
LuciferWept, I'm not being intellectually dishonest. Maybe you might just be projecting yourself. There's no point exchanging ideas if you think I have some sinister agenda. That's probably how the right thinks of the left. The left just thinks you guys are idiots.
reece says2017-04-30T05:06:42.6626877Z
Dyslexia has a toll on spelling.
Ralitsa says2017-05-08T06:15:17.1180259Z
I can sympathize with those who hoped she'd win. But Le Pen is more comparable to Orban, than to people like Trump, Farage or Wilders. And France itself lacks the checks and balances that countries such as the US, have. As a US president, Le Pen would be pretty harmless. I don't think the same would be true of Le Pen's as a French president. What's more, France is a country still under a state of emergency and it's been like that for over a year now. That alone already suspends some rights the French would normally have. The tools for authoritarianism are already deployed and it was done so by a socialist.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.