Zemmour: France's new potential "far right" presidential candiadate

Watch
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5pozMZdTdo&t=1469s

(Skip to 2;30)- In his own words.

He has yet to declare but has recently being predicted to come second in the first presidential run off against Macron. He

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...f-eric-zemmour

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ch-revolution/

Very impressed with what I've seen thus far (even though I don't entirely agree with him) and wish him the best of luck!- He may also be useful in making Le Pen look moderate in comparison and propel her to victory.

Either way- Vive la France!
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
Well this has gone under the radar. Interesting.
3
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
Sounds like he'll go the way that Le Pen did in 2017, then...?
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#4
Name:  Screenshot_2021-10-09-19-33-49-46_92b64b2a7aa6eb3771ed6e18d0029815.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  202.6 KB
He's basically saying in intellectualist terms the ideas that Trump was basically communicating.

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-...-communicator/
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Name:  Screenshot_2021-10-09-19-33-49-46_92b64b2a7aa6eb3771ed6e18d0029815.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  202.6 KB
He's basically saying in intellectualist terms the ideas that Trump was basically communicating.

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-...-communicator/
Such an outstanding communicator he lost to a man who can barely stay awake or finish a sentence by 7 million votes.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by DSilva)
Such an outstanding communicator he lost to a man who can barely stay awake or finish a sentence by 7 million votes.
Election fraud is a terrible thing...

Name:  Screenshot_2021-10-05-11-33-04-33_92b64b2a7aa6eb3771ed6e18d0029815.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  110.7 KB

Reminder Trump gained millions more votes then he won in 2016, iirc the first time that's ever happened and yet he "lost" (Obama, Bush etc lost millions and still won) , and the first time a president has won Ohio, Florida and Texas and yet somehow "lost". This also "conveniently" happened to occur when mail on ballots were used en masse for the first time ever (another "coincidence")

One day these people including the corrupt and cowardly judiciary will be put on trial for high treason.

Name:  Screenshot_2021-10-10-14-35-31-72_92b64b2a7aa6eb3771ed6e18d0029815.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  165.8 KB
1
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
A man who also, in spite of a compliant and complicit media, and aggressive push polling, is seeing his numbers tank. Most popular prez ever. If you're gullible, that is.

Fortifying is the new rigging.
Last edited by TCA2b; 1 week ago
0
reply
xxKittyxx
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
He spreads the reactionary victimhood thicker than I spread Nutella. While that is music to the ears of a certain demographic, typically young(ish), male, often single, and with chips on their shoulders, it is anathema to others that don’t buy into his grievance narrative. It will limit his potential election success unless Macron becomes even more unpopular.
0
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
Yes, I am sure it's anathema to SJWs. Oh no.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Election fraud is a terrible thing...

Name:  Screenshot_2021-10-05-11-33-04-33_92b64b2a7aa6eb3771ed6e18d0029815.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  110.7 KB

Reminder Trump gained millions more votes then he won in 2016, iirc the first time that's ever happened and yet he "lost" (Obama, Bush etc lost millions and still won) , and the first time a president has won Ohio, Florida and Texas and yet somehow "lost". This also "conveniently" happened to occur when mail on ballots were used en masse for the first time ever (another "coincidence")

One day these people including the corrupt and cowardly judiciary will be put on trial for high treason.

Name:  Screenshot_2021-10-10-14-35-31-72_92b64b2a7aa6eb3771ed6e18d0029815.jpg
Views: 12
Size:  165.8 KB
Reminder : Biden won 7 million more votes than Trump and neither the Trump team nor anyone else has provided even the smallest shred of evidence of voter fraud.

You do realise how the Electoral College works right? The candidate that gets 270 EC votes or more wins. Not hard to understand. It's what allowed Trump to win in 2016 despite getting 3 million votes less than Clinton.

Trump did indeed win Florida, Ohio and Texas, but so what? He lost Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. He got less than 270 EC votes. The composition of the states that make up the votes is irrelevant.

The fact no one has lost the presidency while winning those three states is neither here nor there. There haven't actually been that many US elections, and even fewer when all three states have been contested. But I any event it means nothing. Labour won Canterbury, in 2019 and lost hugely, yet they didn't win Canterbury in 1997 when they won a landslide. Does that mean the 2019 election was rigged? Of course not!

Demographic change means that diffeneet states will go on diffeneet directions. With the likes of Ohio becoming safer R and the likes of Arizona and possibly even Texas drifting to D. In almost every election there's various stats along the lines of "this is the first time a presidential candidate has won/lost while winning/losing xyz states".

It's utterly absurd you think that counts as proof the election was stolen. You'd be laughed out of court if that was your 'evidence', and indeed the Trump campaign were, even by Trump fridnly judges.

It's very, very silly. It's also quite telling how you slate SJWs for believing and pushing things for which there is no evidence, yet here you are doing exactly the same. It's why, despite your protestations you have far more in common with the far left than you care to admit. Your tactics are identical.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 week ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by DSilva)
You do realise how the Electoral College works right? The candidate that gets 270 EC votes or more wins. Not hard to understand. It's what allowed Trump to win in 2016 despite getting 3 million votes less than Clinton. Trump did indeed win Florida, Ohio and Texas, but so what? He lost Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. He got less than 270 EC votes. The composition of the states that make up the votes is irrelevant.

The fact no one has lost the presidency while winning those three states is neither here nor there. There haven't actually been that many US elections, and even fewer when all three states have been contested. But I any event it means nothing. Labour won Canterbury, in 2019 and lost hugely, yet they didn't win Canterbury in 1997 when they won a landslide. Does that mean the 2019 election was rigged? Of course not!

Demographic change means that diffeneet states will go on diffeneet directions. With the likes of Ohio becoming safer R and the likes of Arizona and possibly even Texas drifting to D.

It's utterly absurd you think that counts as proof the election was stolen. You'd be laughed out of court if that was your 'evidence'. You haven't provided any evidence because there is none.

You've become such a part of the cult that you don't acre about what's true or false, or things like evidence. Anything that inconveniences you is just branded by you as fraudulent.

It's very very silly.
Sure i'm not contesting that. Biden may well have won more votes than Trump. What I'm contesting is the swing seats.

Canterbury is not a "bellwether" seat. If say in 2019 Corbyn increased his vote share, gained a number of bellwether seats and had similar "irregularities" occur I would be just as highly suspicious even though I preferred Boris.

Demographic change helps shift the vote in the Democrats favour? I thought that was a far right conspiracy theory and the left supports immigration out of the goodness of their hearts? :rolleyes:

Meh. See above. I do not trust the judiciary or the media in America which have been proven again and again to be working to destroy Trump overtly and covertly. They are all part of the same establishment. Eg see the record number of former spies and spooks working in the media etc. So for instance most of the "failed " audits which "prove" Biden did win literally just recounted the ballots, which doesn't mean anything if they are fake.

No, not really. I'm still on record for saying that even if there was no voter fraud I would still 100% support Trump seizing power. It just so happens to be I have a strong "hunch" that there was.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by DSilva)
Reminder : Biden won 7 million more votes than Trump and neither the Trump team nor anyone else has provided even the smallest shred of evidence of voter fraud.

You do realise how the Electoral College works right? The candidate that gets 270 EC votes or more wins. Not hard to understand. It's what allowed Trump to win in 2016 despite getting 3 million votes less than Clinton.

Trump did indeed win Florida, Ohio and Texas, but so what? He lost Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. He got less than 270 EC votes. The composition of the states that make up the votes is irrelevant.

The fact no one has lost the presidency while winning those three states is neither here nor there. There haven't actually been that many US elections, and even fewer when all three states have been contested. But I any event it means nothing. Labour won Canterbury, in 2019 and lost hugely, yet they didn't win Canterbury in 1997 when they won a landslide. Does that mean the 2019 election was rigged? Of course not!

Demographic change means that diffeneet states will go on diffeneet directions. With the likes of Ohio becoming safer R and the likes of Arizona and possibly even Texas drifting to D. In almost every election there's various stats along the lines of "this is the first time a presidential candidate has won/lost while winning/losing xyz states".

It's utterly absurd you think that counts as proof the election was stolen. You'd be laughed out of court if that was your 'evidence', and indeed the Trump campaign were, even by Trump fridnly judges.

It's very, very silly. It's also quite telling how you slate SJWs for believing and pushing things for which there is no evidence, yet here you are doing exactly the same. It's why, despite your protestations you have far more in common with the far left than you care to admit. Your tactics are identical.
PRSOM, but there's no point trying to argue with them. You've hit the nail on the head with your last comment, Trump fanatics will continue to cry fraud even if there is no evidence. Can't possibly say anything remotely bad about their leader, after all, which is why the idea that there was fraud is so vital.
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Can't possibly say anything remotely bad about their leader,
Trump was wrong to sack Sessions,

He should never have given a job to his idiot daughter and son in law or indeed most people in his cabinet eg Bolton. He is also continuing this trend by backing scum like Rubio etc.

He's too much of an Israel Shill

He should have pardoned assange and his supporters and not pandered so much to black people.

He shouldn't have assassinated solomemani which was despicable

I could probably think of more...
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Sure i'm not contesting that. Biden may well have won more votes than Trump. What I'm contesting is the swing seats.

Canterbury is not a "bellwether" seat. If say in 2019 Corbyn increased his vote share, gained a number of bellwether seats and had similar "irregularities" occur I would be just as highly suspicious even though I preferred Boris.

Demographic change helps shift the vote in the Democrats favour? I thought that was a far right conspiracy theory and the left supports immigration out of the goodness of their hearts? :rolleyes:

Meh. See above. I do not trust the judiciary or the media in America which have been proven again and again to be working to destroy Trump overtly and covertly. They are all part of the same establishment. Eg see the record number of former spies and spooks working in the media etc. So for instance most of the "failed " audits which "prove" Biden did win literally just recounted the ballots, which doesn't mean anything if they are fake.

No, not really. I'm still on record for saying that even if there was no voter fraud I would still 100% support Trump seizing power. It just so happens to be I have a strong "hunch" that there was.
What about the swing states are you contesting exactly? If anything Biden underperformed in the swing states - he won the popular vote by 7 million while scraping the swing states. That's because of demographics. Democrats stack up millions of extra votes in states like California and NY, while Republicans win lots of smaller states narrowly. See also UK Parliament and the Labour vote in the cities. What exactly are you alleging was odd about the swing states in 2020?

'Swing states' in the US constantly change and evolve and it benefits and disadvantages both parties. Ohio used to be a real bellwether but is becoming solid R, Texas was ultra safe Dem, then Ultra safe R and is now becoming a swing state again. The rust belt which was safe D has come more into play. Safe R states like Georgia and Arizona have become D.

All of that reflects the changing demographics and voter realignments that are taking place globally, as well as in the USA. Urban, young and ethically diverse areas are going increasingly D while older, whiter areas more R. Absolutely none of that suggests there was voter fraud. What even is your claim here? What are the odd results you think are explainable only by there being huge voter fraud?

There is simply no evidence at all to back up your 'hunch'. None. The fact that your go to argument was that Trump won three particular states and still lost, says it all about the weakness of your 'argument'. And when challenged on why you can't prove it, you have nothing to say of substance. You just make vague remarks about their being a general conspiracy against Trump (also unproven).

You slate the far left for believing things on the basis of no evidence. You are doing exactly that here.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 week ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by SHallowvale)
PRSOM, but there's no point trying to argue with them. You've hit the nail on the head with your last comment, Trump fanatics will continue to cry fraud even if there is no evidence. Can't possibly say anything remotely bad about their leader, after all, which is why the idea that there was fraud is so vital.
He shows the danger of being in a personality cult. Evidence, facts etc are to be disregarded if they inconvenience the dear leader.
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by DSilva)
What about the swing states are you contesting exactly? If anything Biden underperformed in the swing states - he won the popular vote by 7 million while scraping the swing states. That's because of demographics. Democrats stack up millions of extra votes in states like California and NY, while Republicans win lots of smaller states narrowly. See also UK Parliament and the Labour vote in the cities. What exactly are you alleging was odd about the swing states in 2020?

'Swing states' in the US constantly change and evolve and it benefits and disadvantages both parties. Ohio used to be a real bellwether but is becoming solid R, Texas was ultra safe Dem, then Ultra safe R and is now becoming a swing state again. The rust belt which was safe D has come more into play. Safe R states like Georgia and Arizona have become D.

All of that reflects the changing demographics and voter realignments that are taking place globally, as well as in the USA. Urban, young and ethically diverse areas are going increasingly D while older, whiter areas more R. Absolutely none of that suggests there was voter fraud. What even is your claim here? What are the odd results you think are explainable only by there being huge voter fraud?

There is simply no evidence at all to back up your 'hunch'. None. The fact that your go to argument was that Trump won three particular states and still lost, says it all about the weakness of your 'argument'. And when challenged on why you can prove it, you have nothing to say of substance.

You slate the far left for believing things on the basis of no evidence. You are doing exactly that here.
I'm saying there were a number of electoral irregularities that occured in these swing states where there were high levels of mail in ballots.

I watched the whole thing live where without any reasoning they "stopped counting" for two hours or so - told poll watchers to leave- (whilst Trump had a large lead) and then suddenly started counting again with Biden suddenly ahead.

Now I believe it's very likely that Biden did in fact do very well with legitimate mail in ballots.

But there was a lot of suspicious activity around these mail in ballots and what went on on election night and since then we have seen files have been deleted and mass obstruction.

Eg

https://mobile.twitter.com/realLizUS...m-az-senate%2F
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
I'm saying there were a number of electoral irregularities that occured in these swing states where there were high levels of mail in ballots.

I watched the whole thing live where without any reasoning they "stopped counting" for two hours or so - told poll watchers to leave- (whilst Trump had a large lead) and then suddenly started counting again with Biden suddenly ahead.

Now I believe it's very likely that Biden did in fact do very well with legitimate mail in ballots.

But there was a lot of suspicious activity around these mail in ballots and what went on on election night and since then we have seen files have been deleted and mass obstruction.

Eg

https://mobile.twitter.com/realLizUS...m-az-senate%2F
What were those irregularities? What suspicious activity?

There was a much larger amount to mail in ballots this year because of Covid. Trump told his supporters to vote in person - so it's absolutely no surprise that the mail in ballots were heavily Dem, just as the on the day votes were heavily R.

In states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconisn they counted the in person votes first and the mail in ballots last. That meant that, as was fully expected, Trump had a very big lead initially which was whittled away and overtaken as the mail in ballots were counted. That's not evidence of a fraud, that's just the order the votes were counted in.

In Ohio and North Carolian, the mail in ballots were counted first giving Biden very big leads. Then the in person votes were counted and Trump overtook him. Does that mean that the Trump team committed fraud in those states? Of course not! It's just the order the votes were counted.

Again, you're making an extraudinary claim without being able to provide even the slightest bit of evidence. Do you consider backing up your claims with evidence to be just for the "establishment"?
Last edited by DSilva; 1 week ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#18
DSilva let me put it like this.
You're watching the 2017 election live and they're counting the last few seats. Corbyn is currently ahead of May. Suddenly without reason it's reported that they have stopped counting and asked poll watchers to leave. Three hours later and suddenly May is beating Corbyn due to a sudden surge in mail in ballots.

Numerous people including poll watchers are alleging that there is fraud going on which is then amplified by Corbyn and his associates. This is then rounded on by The Sun and all the anti Corbyn press screaming that he is a violent communist. Corbyn is then basically banned from media and is persona non Grata among "respectable" media.

Numerous labour figures overtly and covertly hostile to Corbyn such as John Woodcock and Keir Starmer refuse to do anything about it and some of these appear happy that he lost.

In some seats there is an investigation but they either simply recount the vote instead of fully investigating it or they delete records and/ or obstruct the process and is dismissed by the judiciary who don't even bother to investigate it. Corbyn and key supporters maintain that the election was stolen.

Are you honestly telling me you wouldn't be at all suspicious?
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
DSilva let me put it like this.
You're watching the 2017 election live and they're counting the last few seats. Corbyn is currently ahead of May. Suddenly without reason it's reported that they have stopped counting and asked poll watchers to leave. Three hours later and suddenly May is beating Corbyn due to a sudden surge in mail in ballots.

Numerous people including poll watchers are alleging that there is fraud going on which is then amplified by Corbyn and his associates. This is then rounded on by The Sun and all the anti Corbyn press screaming that he is a violent communist. Corbyn is then basically banned from media and is persona non Grata among "respectable" media.

Numerous labour figures overtly and covertly hostile to Corbyn such as John Woodcock and Keir Starmer refuse to do anything about it and some of these appear happy that he lost.

In some seats there is an investigation but they either simply recount the vote instead of fully investigating it or they delete records and/ or obstruct the process and is dismissed by the judiciary who don't even bother to investigate it. Corbyn and key supporters maintain that the election was stolen.

Are you honestly telling me you wouldn't be at all suspicious?
Doesn't really work that analogy because UK constituencies don't declare until the constituency has reported as a whole.

There wasn't a several hour break in the counting of the votes across the board. Remember the "stop the count" chants in Arizona? And not even Trump appointed judges found certain poll watchers accounts credible evidence of voter fraud. Often poll watchers were claiming things that were perfectly legal were fraud.

The key questions is 'do you have any evidence' and despite a year and hundreds of court cases, the answer remains a resounding no. This isn't a case where there is some evidence, there is simply none. As shown by you arguing that Trump winning Texas while losing is evidence of voter fraud 🙄.

You even admit Biden won the popular vote, but find it impossible to believe he won a handful of swing states narrowly.

In your heart of hearts, I bet you know that the whole 'voter fraud' claim was and is a nonsense.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 week ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by DSilva)
Doesn't really work that analogy because UK constituencies don't declare until the constituency has reported as a whole.

There wasn't a several hour break in the counting of the votes across the board. Remember the "stop the count" chants in Arizona? And not even Trump appointed judges found certain poll watchers accounts credible evidence of voter fraud. Often poll watchers were claiming things that were perfectly legal were fraud.

The key questions is 'do you have any evidence' and despite a year and hundreds of court cases, the answer remains a resounding no. This isn't a case where there is some evidence, there is simply none. As shown by you arguing that Trump winning Texas while losing is evidence of voter fraud 🙄.

You even admit Biden won the popular vote, but find it impossible to believe he won a handful of swing states narrowly.

In your heart of hearts, I bet you know that the whole 'voter fraud' claim was and is a nonsense.
You didn't answer whether you would find my example suspicious.

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.

I think it is possible Biden won fairly sure.

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

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?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (103)
57.87%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (20)
11.24%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (21)
11.8%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (14)
7.87%
I haven't started researching yet (10)
5.62%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (10)
5.62%

Watched Threads

View All