Talk Elections

I'll try to make you vote in past French presidential elections, but with today candidates.
I'll switch from a past candidate to a present candidate who has the same political positioning/behaviour/course/strength.

For example, 1965 nowadays would be something like that:

de Gaulle -> Sarkozy
Mitterrand -> Fabius
Lecanuet -> Jean-Christophe Lagarde
Tixier-Vignancour -> Gollnisch
Marcilhacy -> François Goulard
Barbu -> Hirsch

More about this later.

Of course I won't be able to make 2007 in... 2009.
But I'll try to make a 2007 in... 2017.

Is it an Hashmeite-esque "timeline" or should anybody give his own version ?

Insulting!

Anyway, Fabius in this case

You'll be able to vote in each case, I have still to create the lists. Just wait a bit.

I know that this is "horrible" for great historical figures... But it's a way to have many present what-ifs "based" on historical precedents.

For the "big" candidates, I'll change for every election, so that Sarkozy will only be proposed once, Royal, Aubry, DSK, Bayrou, etc, also.
It will be far more difficult for the far-left and for the far-right, as they have a candidate in each election and not so many big figures nowadays...

Part One:
FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION "à la 1965"
First round

6 candidates:

Alain Juppé (<-> Charles de Gaulle, big leader of the gaullist right)
Laurent Fabius (<-> François Mitterrand, already old leader of the left, but not first leader, and trying to come back)
Jean-Christophe Lagarde (<-> Jean Lecanuet, not very well known centre-right man, rising star, at ease in the medias)
Bruno Gollnisch (<-> Jean-Louis Tixier-Vignancour, strong and "vocal" figure of the far-right)
François Goulard (<-> Pierre Marcilhacy, individualistic and unknown politician from the pro-European centre-right, who often dissents with the right)
José Bové (<-> Marcel Barbu, populist and so-called "generous" guy from the civil society, weirdly elected, based on strong "communities")

You have 6 votes, that you must split between 3 candidates: 4-1-1.

My votes:
4 for Juppé
1 for Lagarde
1 for Goulard

(I would have preferred 6 for Juppé or 4 Juppé-2 Lagarde, but this is the rule... designed to make things a little less "partisan" and a little more "suspenseful" with not too much "zeros")

Of course, the rule may seem hard when you have many candidates from one side and few from the other, but remember that, in the next elections, that will be different.
And you'll have:
Hollande, Royal, Aubry, DSK, Hamon, Peillon, Valls
Copé, Sarkozy, Fillon, Alliot-Marie, Villepin, Bertrand, Morin, Borloo
and many others :D

So, it's just for fun !

Vote is open !

Fabien you just did the most complicated and pointless what-if that I have ever seen!

But, well, enjoy!

;)

4-Bové :P
1-Lagarde
1-Fabius

Sorry, but I really can't bear Fabius...

4 for Lagarde
1 for Goulard
1 for Juppé

Pointless ?!?
Well, everything is pointless around here... (except reporting real polls)
That's the point, precisely ;)

Complicated, yes, but because, we need to have a sort of real election and with, at most, 5 voters, we must have more votes...

3 Bové
2 Fabius
1 Lagarde

4-1-1.

Oh, hmm. Change that to 4-1-1 then.

Yes, but that's the mix of present and past, I mean, the contexts are so much different, that we can't make people match that easy, I tend to see it more irrelevant than pointless in fact. You know I already can't go in past what-ifs given that for me it's a non sense to vote for something that I didn't live in, so imagine what is this what-ifs for me! I can just go in present/future what-ifs.


Héhé, ok, go on then!

;)

If you don't like it, find it irrelevant and so forth, don't read it. It's easy to ignore a board, I do it all the time. Do likewise.

Sure, and you may have noticed that I haven't voted in it, but well, hope that this is still possible to give an impress on something, or even a criticism... ;D

Exactly my point.

No need to post if you don't enjoy it. If I posted in every thread I don't approve of, I'd have the most posts on the forum.

Hmm, sorry to insist but I felt the need to say what I thought of this. This wasn't an offense against this thread, just a...you know...criticism...opinion...one more time, hope that's still allowed.

Of course I won't post in every thread toward which I would have some criticisms to do. But there are some, spontaneously, I share the criticisms I would have on. Maybe it's on those I feel more concerned.

For example alternative past timelines, I just can't go through that because in my mind the history could have only been what it has been, so once, while you were making an alternative past timeline, about French presidentials, I felt concern by the topic but as I can't go through it I signaled it, that I was incompatible with past timelines and period, you haven't seen me bitching each alternative past timeline (well, maybe one day if ever I fall on some people that take alternative past timelines too much seriously I'll renew the criticism again, but well, not even sure, and period). To make a full criticism about it, I could say that on the other hand it can be a good way to speak about history, and to make work the imagination.

But, well, here Fabien came with a new concept, still about something I feel concerned with, so well, I felt the need to give my opinion about this concept.

Spontaneity, criticism, once again, hope this is...allowed. ;D

It's not like if i were constantly bitching that thread, I gave my criticism, Fabien answered, I answered to Fabien.

Come on, we call it a dialog.

Of course, it can't match perfectly, but you see that my 1965-like candidates aren't so bad (sorry for this lack of humility...).

In fact, more than the votes, we may have discussion about my choice of candidates (here, I'm speaking to Hash, Antonio, PGSable, etc, more than to you Benoît ;)).

BTW, trying to vote "honestly" in past elections is really interesting: see what Hans-im-Glück made on the German elections.
As for me, I honestly acknowledge that I may have been wrong in the 1930s, by voting for the DNVP or the "bad" Zentrum: that makes you ask difficult questions sometimes.
It forces you not to vote with your today mind, but to try to vote with a mind of the time.

It also forces one to acknowledge that he may have not been a "résistant" in 1940, or even after 1942. (always my same example, sorry).

But, of course, we need to know the real context of the time: that's not easy.
Another example on the other side: it's difficult today to say that Allende wasn't a good president; very few have the courage to say this. (I'm not saying that Pinochet was right, of course... just trying to think with a 1971-72 mind).

To come back to this topic, it's just a game, un prétexte to put together some names of today French politics in an odd but fun mix.
So, it's less serious than the other types of games...

Part One:
FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION "à la 1965"
Official results of the first round

30 votes
José Bové 9 votes (30.0%)
Jean-Christophe Lagarde 7 votes (23.3%)
Laurent Fabius 6 votes (20.0%)
Alain Juppé 5 votes (16.7%)
François Goulard 3 votes (10.0%)
Bruno Gollnisch 0 vote (0.0%)

Second round

2 candidates:

[b]Alain Juppé [/b] (<-> Charles de Gaulle, big leader of the gaullist right)
Laurent Fabius (<-> François Mitterrand, already old leader of the left, but not first leader, and trying to come back)
Jean-Christophe Lagarde (<-> Jean Lecanuet, not very well known centre-right man, rising star, at ease in the medias)
Bruno Gollnisch (<-> Jean-Louis Tixier-Vignancour, strong and "vocal" figure of the far-right)
François Goulard (<-> Pierre Marcilhacy, individualistic and unknown politician from the pro-European centre-right, who often dissents with the right)
José Bové (<-> Marcel Barbu, populist and so-called "generous" guy from the civil society, weirdly elected, based on strong "communities")

You have 2 votes, that you cast for only one candidate or split between the two candidates.

2 votes for Jean-Christophe Lagarde

Lagarde Président !
Drancy à Paris ! (oups)

I have nothing against not liking past timelines, I have nothing against stating it once maybe twice. But going in every thread which you see to re-state your opposition and feelings to such things is annoying, useless and also post-padding. Also, what's the use? Attention-whoring? Post padding? Trying to make others dislike it too? Ruin it?

I don't post in timelines which I am not interested in, unless it's really stupid so that I can ruin the stupidity by posting about elephants, rhinos and communists.

I don't care if you don't enjoy the genre, I do, others do, others don't. I won't go on a Jihad to convert the Pagans. I find it interesting, if you don't, meh, what am I supposed to do? Cry about it when I go to bed?

Anyways, damn, it's only meant for fun and it's a game. And yes, anyways isn't a word. Sue me.


If you really feel the urgent need to post about it, since it does seem like it's a life-changing thread, send a PM. It's less annoying.



Yes, yes, I know, I'm closed to dialogue ::)


I say it ;), and that's why it irks me to see leftists naming every damn thing after a mediocre President-turned-leftie-martyr. Of course, if I say it too loud, I get called a fascist Pinochet-loving bastard.

2 for Lagarde.

Allez le centre, dans le trou la gaugauche!

Bové-Lagarde making the run-off, well, I enjoy it ! :D

(Of course, :'( because of Juppé bad score, even worse than Chirac's usual 19...)

See, that's why I can't go through this things, because it's impossible to put yourself in "what you would have done if you lived at that time", first because you just can't know your reactions in something you don't live, haven't lived, and second, because all what we are is the fruit of the past, you in the past is a non sense because what you are is the fruit of this, by negating this you delete either what you are and what has been the past, see? Well, this is for the serious arguments. And my mind is so tied to this that I can't go through this.


I understand it very much, that's why each time I concluded by ;)



;)



Haha. Wonderful, I was finishing to answer to Fabien glad to having had a discussion about that, and "Warning - 2 new replies have been posted". I discover the nuking post of Hashemmite.

Ok, I think I already made my point I just engaged a criticism here, just a dialog, if you can't get that, or don't want to get that, then I can do nothing for it. I explained my point that I don't bitch in all threads to which I would have criticisms, and it's a matter of fact, I don't, now, if you think that's wrong you will have to come with some inventions to prove it, I just posted in one of your timeline to say that i was incompatible with, and, period.

So, I see all your last post as total unfairness.

You ate something wrong or?

And yeah!

Lagarde for president!!

actually...

I merely stated my opinion on posting your opinions on every timeline. I see it as annoying. Note the word "I".

I never said that you couldn't do it, nor did I say that you were being a jerk in every thread, or that you were a blind hack.

Please, do me a favour, we now know that you don't necessarily like althists so please stop posting in althists threads to say that. No, it's nothing personal, I like you (but you probably don't) and I'm not writing this to be a troll/jerk/asshole. Meh. Point final.

It gets off topic, something which I'm encouraging in this very thread. However, if you have comments on the actual stuff or wish to partake in it, please do so!

The campaign for the 2nd round has been disturbed by other debates, but the vote is now open.

The first numbers are in favour of the young Lagarde (2x2 votes), but many precincts haven't reported or are even keeping on voting. And those precincts may not be pro-Lagarde.

Stay tuned !
(And cast your 2 votes ;))

2 for chiens battus.

Well once again, I think I never did some knee-jerking bitching about that.

Once in one thread, a long time ago, about "what would you have done if you lived at that time", I said what i thought of such stuffs, and never came back on it. I opened a thread dedicated to the debate and period. Then, enough time latter, i came in one of your timeline about French presidentials to say that I was incompatible with these things. Period. Never wrote in a timeline again, or at least about that. Time later I've been led to go on it through regionalism, then as the debate didn't take place there, it took plce by De Gaulle. Period. Lately, I made a small hack in the "things...actually wrong" thread, but if we can't do such kind of hacks here (and i said it was one when i wrote it), then, let's just do a list on things we disagree with, and let's focus on political games. The same day I opened the thread on Warsaw which is still an other aspect of this debate. Period.

Within the 2 years i've been here i may have repeated some arguments here or there, but I really think it wasn't knee-jerk bitching. Once I clearly state on something I really don't feel the need to bitch all the time about that, that's why i don't. Though I'll allow myself to repeat something one time i'll want it, but I think i really don't abuse about that. It's just that all what concerns the fact to touch to the past is something important in the way I think, so i can be led to regularly come back on this, and this by several aspects of a debate, when my spontaneity feel the need about it. And when i do it, i'm not hacking, i'm engaging in debates, trying to come with arguments. And when i'm hacking that's for joke. That are some smileys.


Don't make East coast rebuplican here, the guy who think that people disagree with him because they don't like him, you're better than that. I think you're a very correct guy, smart, with strong knowledges for his age (maybe a bit too much a political nerd, but well, you seem to be aware about it, so that's fine). A bit too much passioned and maybe attracted by the past but this is only a personal appreciation from me, from my point of view, not a judgment. Well, to be full, I also find you a bit too easily excessive and upset, but other than that, I don't have the slightest problem with you! :) Actually. And anyways, I appreciate people for what they are, for their behavior, their attitude, not for what they think.

So, well, back to this topic, Fabien opened a new concept, i gave my impress about it, i've been glad of the few words i've exchanged with him about it, which also permit myself to be more precise about my issue with alternative past timelines, which I didn't precisely do, and that's fine, period, i really think you made a cake from a crumb here.

Well, outside of this, I'm also aware this is a game, and if I'm too much tied to a a way of thinking to participate to it, I've also always finished my messages by some ;). To show I took it light.

So may you enjoy yourselves with this totally irrelevant game!!

;D

(yes, I like provocation a bit)

;)

OK, guys, that's clear for everyone now :). Thanks.

So,


Please,
Antonio, PGSable, Kalwejt, Xahar and others, you may cast 2 votes (2-0 or 1-1) in this second round between
Jean-Christophe Lagarde (NC, deputy-mayor of Drancy) and José Bové (div.écol., MEP for south-west)

Part One:
FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION "à la 1965"
Official results of the first round

5 voters
José Bové 9 votes (30.0%)
Jean-Christophe Lagarde 7 votes (23.3%)
Laurent Fabius 6 votes (20.0%)
Alain Juppé 5 votes (16.7%)
François Goulard 3 votes (10.0%)
Bruno Gollnisch 0 vote (0.0%)

A surprising second round between a centrist rising star and a rebellious former peasant close to the far-left.

Official results of the second round

3 voters
Jean-Christophe Lagarde 4 votes (66.7%)
José Bové 2 votes (33.3%)

In a very low turnout, Jean-Christophe Lagarde becomes the first French president elected in a universal suffrage election.

()

Vive la République ! Vive la France !

I should have said that, in 1969, a referendum occurred on the bill agreeing on the treaty allowing the UK, Ireland, Norway, Denmark and... Turkey inside the EEC.

This referendum was heavily lost by the President (No: 59.7%, Yes: 40.3%).
The President personally intervened during the campaign and obliged his governement and his majority to campaign for the yes" vote", whereas many dissented and reminded him that, during the 1965 campaign, he agreed on the UK but not on Turkey inside the EEC.

President Jean-Christophe Lagarde resigned and Gérard LARCHER, Senate's president, was put in charge as interim President.

()

Vive la République ! Vive la France !

For the new polls, François Fillon, Prime Minister until 1968, was picked as the candidate of the mainstream right, opposed to Turkey's entry inside the EEC.

On the left, the nomination of Peillon, favorable to an alliance with the centre, prompted the dissident candidacy of the left of the PS, Benoît Hamon.

Larcher instaed of Lagarde, oh fuck...