Zemmour: France&#x27;s new potential &quot;far right&quot; presidential candiadate

Original post by Starship Trooper

You didn't answer whether you would find my example suspicious.

Depends on what exactly happens, and I don't accept your analogy is the same as what happened in the US.

I do not trust remotely the US establishment and that goes for the judges and even SCOTUS. The issue isn't there isn't any evidence but that it was not accepted by the judiciary and the media which I think are indisposed against Trump. I am highly sceptical of the US 2020 election as a result.

No, the issue very much is that there is no evidence. As you haven't been able to provide any. Again, you using Trump winning Texas and losing the EC shows just how weak your case is.

You are highly sceptical purely because you like Trump. Because there is absolutely no evidence at all to back up your claim of electoral fraud.

I think it is possible Biden won fairly sure.

Let the back peddling continue...

It's not merely possible, but it's exactly what did happen.

Do you think it is theoretically possible for the vote to be rigged as I have described?

Do I think it's possible for the Democrats to orchestrate a massive voter fraud operation across multiple seats, which stole the election without leaving even the tiniest trace of evidence? No I don't, that's an easy one.

Do you agree that Trump was hugely unpopular among much of the establishment and that many would do almost anything to stop him winning and had the means to do so?

Sure he was unpopular. But that's not evidence.

Reply 21

@Starship Trooper

In every UK election night, Labour start off ahead and the Tories usually end up winning. That's not voter fraud, it's just the way the votes are counted.

Same in the US. The fact Biden came back strongly in the swing states is entirely down to the fact they counted all the in person votes first and the mail in ballots last.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 22

OP

@DSilva I'm not disputing that Biden got a overwhelming majority of mail in ballots.

Let me reiterate.

Trump winning bellwether states, increasing his vote share by millions, being despised by the establishment, Biden being clearly underwhelming, the unique voter mail in precedent due to Covid, accusations of voter fraud, irregularities in mail in ballots, deleted files... Etc

These can all be explained individually and do not necessarily constitute evidence on their own. But when taken together I think validate a high degree of plausible skepticism.

Reply 23

Original post by Starship Trooper

@DSilva I'm not disputing that Biden got a overwhelming majority of mail in ballots.

Let me reiterate.

Trump winning bellwether states, increasing his vote share by millions, being despised by the establishment, Biden being clearly underwhelming, the unique voter mail in precedent due to Covid, accusations of voter fraud, irregularities in mail in ballots, deleted files... Etc

These can all be explained individually and do not necessarily constitute evidence on their own. But when taken together I think validate a high degree of plausible skepticism.

Texas absolutely isn't a 'bellwether state', and Biden also won 'bellwether States'. US politics isn't static, its constantly evolving and with it so are the key swing states.

Yeah Biden was underwhelming but a lot of people absolutely hated Trump in a way you don't seem to appreciate. Plus Biden wasn't as off-putting as Clinton.

You've stated those things can all be explained individually but seem to think together they constitute some form of valid evidence. As if throwing a load of completelty unevidenced and often disproven claims together forms a much more convincing argument. It doesn't. I followed the court cases and these claims simply fell apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The 'evidence' if you can call it that (which you can't) seems to relate to a handful of reported 'irregularities' which by and large all had far more plausible explanations than voter fraud, and in any event weren't even close to being of the scale to overturn any state's results.

It's just a dishonest way of arguing. It's saying that you don't care whether or not your claims have any evidential basis at all, you believe them to be true because you want them to be true.

You seem to continue to back pedal though, which I guess is a welcome development.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 24

OP

Original post by DSilva

Texas absolutely isn't a 'bellwether state', and Biden also won 'bellwether States'. US politics isn't static, its constantly evolving and with it so are the key swing states.

Yeah Biden was underwhelming but a lot of people absolutely hated Trump in a way you don't seem to appreciate. Plus Biden wasn't as off-putting as Clinton.

You've stated those things can all be explained individually but seem to think together they constitute some form of valid evidence. As if throwing a load of completelty unevidenced and often disproven claims together forms a much more convincing argument. It doesn't. I followed the court cases and these claims simply fell apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The 'evidence' if you can call it that (which you can't) seems to relate to a handful of reported 'irregularities' which by and large all had far more plausible explanations than voter fraud, and in any event weren't even close to being of the scale to overturn any state's results.

It's just a dishonest way of arguing. It's saying that you don't care whether or not your claims have any evidential basis at all, you believe them to be true because you want them to be true.

You seem to continue to back pedal though, which I guess is a welcome development.

Back pedalling what? I've said from day one that I don't care if Biden won fairly, Trump should stay in office. Democracy is overrated, particularly with "demographic change".

I didn't say Texas is a bellwether state - I said that no president has won Texas, Ohio and Florida and not won the presidency which you yourself said is true.

Reply 25

Original post by Starship Trooper

Back pedalling what? I've said from day one that I don't care if Biden won fairly, Trump should stay in office. Democracy is overrated, particularly with "demographic change".

I didn't say Texas is a bellwether state - I said that no president has won Texas, Ohio and Florida and not won the presidency which you yourself said is true.

I don't know if that's true. But it's completely irrelevant.

I bet no other president has lost the popular vote by 3 million and won the EC. Does that mean 2016 was the result of electoral fraud?

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 26

OP

Original post by DSilva

I don't know if that's true. But it's completely irrelevant.

I bet no other president has lost the popular vote by 3 million and won the EC. Does that mean 2016 was the result of electoral fraud?

On its own yes.

No I'm reasonably certain that's not uncommon under fptp systems.

Reply 27

xxKittyxx

6

It this thread about French politics or just Trump supporters explaining how they still haven't come to terms with their hero losing to Sleepy Joe?

Reply 28

Original post by Starship Trooper

On its own yes.

No I'm reasonably certain that's not uncommon under fptp systems.

If there's one thing that's defined politics in the last ten years it's volatility. Parties and candidates winning in places they've never won and losing in places they've always won. It's happened across the globe.

You seem to admit that every bit of 'evidence' can be easily explained for reasons other than voter fraud, but that somehow adding together a load of often disproven and easily explainable claims makes a compelling or even plausible case. It doesn't.

And even by your own metrics it doesn't work. Biden didn't 'suddenly' jump into the lead. It was an agonisingly slow process as the mail in ballots were counted. It took a day for him to overtake Trump in Michigan and Wisconsin, about three days for him to overtake Trump in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 29

SHallowvale

14

Original post by DSilva

You seem to admit that every bit of 'evidence' can be easily explained for reasons other than voter fraud, but that somehow adding together a load of often disproven and easily explainable claims makes a compelling or even plausible case. It doesn't.

Nail on the head, once again. It's similar to how a lot of conspiracy theories work: you present a bunch of random and unrelated bits of 'evidence', each of which can be easily explained / dismissed in their own right, and act like they all come together to form a specific conclusion.

Reply 30

Original post by SHallowvale

Nail on the head, once again. It's similar to how a lot of conspiracy theories work: you present a bunch of random and unrelated bits of 'evidence', each of which can be easily explained / dismissed in their own right, and act like they all come together to form a specific conclusion.

Exactly. To lots of people, facts, evidence and reason are boring and inconvenient so they offer ludicrous and borderline delusional explanations when there are far simpler and more plausible explanations available.

What's more likely? That the Democrats, and the judicial system including all Trump appointed judges, together orchestrated an extremely successful steal in several states without leaving a shred of evidence at all, OR that Biden simply won more votes than Trump in those states.

Every piece of 'evidence' put forward by Trump and his supporters has either been easily explained or shown to be untrue.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 31

The RAR

21

Hopefully this new candidate can stop all those dinghies from coming here

Reply 32

Napp

22

Original post by Starship Trooper

That's not me knocking Trump by the way. Trump is an outstanding communicator. A fact that thankfully most liberals are too arrogant and stupid to realise.

https://communicatemedia.com/donald-trump-effective-communicator/

Given he cant talk in basic English, how is he a great communicator? His speeches were rambling, circuitous and went off on any number of random tangents. Not exactly a classic example of getting your point across succintly and simply

Reply 33

Napp

22

Original post by Starship Trooper

@DSilva I'm not disputing that Biden got a overwhelming majority of mail in ballots.

Let me reiterate.

Trump winning bellwether states, increasing his vote share by millions, being despised by the establishment, Biden being clearly underwhelming, the unique voter mail in precedent due to Covid, accusations of voter fraud, irregularities in mail in ballots, deleted files... Etc

These can all be explained individually and do not necessarily constitute evidence on their own. But when taken together I think validate a high degree of plausible skepticism.

You think Biden was loved by 'the establishment' (such as thats a thing anyway) given that Trump is quite clearly a card carryibng member of it as well.
Either way, both were, to put it extremely politely, underwhelming.

Reply 34

OP

Original post by Napp

Given he cant talk in basic English, how is he a great communicator? His speeches were rambling, circuitous and went off on any number of random tangents. Not exactly a classic example of getting your point across succintly and simply

Did you read the link? There are many other videos on YouTube etc of communication experts who say he is great at communicating. You also have to bear on mind who he is communicating too. Trump speaks differently depending on his audience.

Basically "Trumpspeak" is great because it is designed to appeal to mass audiences in sharp short simple soundbites. Everyone knows Make America Great Again or Build A Wall whether they love it or hate it.

Original post by Napp

You think Biden was loved by 'the establishment' (such as thats a thing anyway) given that Trump is quite clearly a card carryibng member of it as well.
Either way, both were, to put it extremely politely, underwhelming.

Yes Biden was a career mainstream politiciian for decades.

Trump was kinda a part of the establishment in the same way maybe Simon cowell or someone is today but that was destroyed in 2016 and then further destroyed in 2020. Now I would say that this may or may not be consciously done. I do think Trump may have thought he could "win the establishment over" or something to that effect. Equally parts of the establishment wanted to use Trump for their own end. But for a variety of complex reasons this didn't happen.

Reply 35

Napp

22

Original post by Starship Trooper

Did you read the link? There are many other videos on YouTube etc of communication experts who say he is great at communicating. You also have to bear on mind who he is communicating too. Trump speaks differently depending on his audience.

Basically "Trumpspeak" is great because it is designed to appeal to mass audiences in sharp short simple soundbites. Everyone knows Make America Great Again or Build A Wall whether they love it or hate it.

Yes Biden was a career mainstream politiciian for decades.

He's good at communicating to his base but he's not good at communicating in general, which was what you were driving at, no?
The soundbites are pithy, although i doubt he came up with them, the former being an apprioriated slogan of a nazi sympathiser i imagine one of his staff drew on tbh
Indeed, pity almost, he used to be quite a good politician if his records anything to go by but decvidedly an unfit president. Then again, compared to the contenders :lol:

You've got to pity America where the democrats options were so unbelievably atrocious and the Republicans were being led by a cult leader who mocked dead servicemen, threatened to nuke DPRK and was generally a breath taking sexist. That isnt to say he didnt do some good. His policies of removing CRT and other nonsense from government were good and the similar ones deserve their due respect.

Trump was kinda a part of the establishment in the same way maybe Simon cowell or someone is today but that was destroyed in 2016 and then further destroyed in 2020. Now I would say that this may or may not be consciously done. I do think Trump may have thought he could "win the establishment over" or something to that effect. Equally parts of the establishment wanted to use Trump for their own end. But for a variety of complex reasons this didn't happen.

In a manner of speaking but then again, if you become president you are by definition part of ther establishment. Especially as he staffed his government with the elite and nothing but. Its rather hard to call yourself a 'man of the people' when you live in a gold encrusted penthouse, dont pay taxes and generally doesnt have a clue how the ordinary man in the street lives (as aptly shown by him repeatedly stiffing them on pay).
Then again, i still lean to the view that he didnt want to be president and was just using it as an opportunity to drum up business for himself.

Suffice it to say, i satill view him as an unbelievably incompetent individual and thats in comparison to his predecessors and successor - a geriatric with impacted mentla faculties and a rogue war monger who tried to start a nuclear war on Iran for the hell of it.

Reply 36

guillotine4eu

1

The French Suicide (Le Suicide français) is a 2014 French nonfiction book by Éric Zemmour. It looks over changes in French politics from the 1970s to the 2010s and their effects on society. It then comes to the conclusion that France as a nation has been severely damaged through those changes.

Wow what coincidence that's arguably same for Britain and every other Western nation.

Reply 37

Fckyu

1

We never stood a chance. As soon as they invented terms like hate speech (meaning being against replacing your population with another is same as hating those of that race)

Reply 38

OP

Original post by Napp

He's good at communicating to his base but he's not good at communicating in general, which was what you were driving at, no?
The soundbites are pithy, although i doubt he came up with them, the former being an apprioriated slogan of a nazi sympathiser i imagine one of his staff drew on tbh
Indeed, pity almost, he used to be quite a good politician if his records anything to go by but decvidedly an unfit president. Then again, compared to the contenders :lol:

You've got to pity America where the democrats options were so unbelievably atrocious and the Republicans were being led by a cult leader who mocked dead servicemen, threatened to nuke DPRK and was generally a breath taking sexist. That isnt to say he didnt do some good. His policies of removing CRT and other nonsense from government were good and the similar ones deserve their due respect.

No I said that he tailors his delivery to his audience. Most of what we are seeing is what he is choosing to project to some degree.
Eg look at some of his interviews from before 2010.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y4CqF4hjCGI

How did Biden use to be a good politician? I mean he supported along with Clinton the tough crime bills that they've later denounced and apologized for.

Trump didn't mock dead servicemen unless you count John McCain. Where did Trump threaten to nuke North Korea? Trump's foreign policy rhetoric is very interesting but it was effective.

Consider: people like peace prize winner Obama droned endlessly about Human Rights, peace etc and then you have Trump saying he'll basically commit war crimes if anyone messes with America. Now who started more wars and killed more innocent civilians? Obama by a landslide.

Trump's policy of "peace through strength" a core tenet of realism worked, where as the liberal utopianism doesn't. Opposition to trump's rhetoric is largely virtue signallism writ large.

As for the president automattically being part of the establishment. I think for the first time no. I think the sort of "establishment" that liberals fantasize about died in the 60s with Nixon.

Trump appointments- I think you're half right. I think there are a number of things you have to take into context for 2016 Trump and I think he is half to blame

- first of all a large segment of the republican political machine hated Trump and an even larger segment also didn't like Trump but wanted to use him.

Just like Corbyn, where there are many similar parallels, trump had a party management problem where many career people activity despised and wanted to sabotage the (popular with grassroots leader). People don't want career politicians from eton etc but then act annoyed when newcomers like Trump come in and don't fully understand all the levers of power.

It's one thing to seize power in the executive, but unless you have a a network of dedicated facilitstors you are fighting a uphill battle in many cases. However Trump does not have this excuse anymore as there are now plenty of Trumpist personnel which there wasn't then...

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 39

OP