French election: Marine Le Pen could still become France's next president, new analysis finds - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52168630]bruv, denying climate change, protectionism, and all the other fun stuff that Le Pen is planning to roll out only harms the economy as well as the people in the long term.[/QUOTE] Only because "Big Business International(TM)" has decided that nobody will dare resist globalism otherwise they will throw their toys out of the pram, at the wall and at the people if they don't [b]comply[/b] with what they [b]want[/b] for themselves. They need climate change (however much mankind is contributing to that change) and international problems so that they go on beating the international drum about merging everything together for their own benefit. Political power should be separated into regions so that people can keep their freedom of choice.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52169107]Only because "Big Business International(TM)" has decided that nobody will dare resist globalism otherwise they will throw their toys out of the pram, at the wall and at the people if they don't [b]comply[/b] with what they [b]want[/b] for themselves. They need climate change (however much mankind is contributing to that change) and international problems so that they go on beating the international drum about merging everything together for their own benefit. Political power should be separated into regions so that people can keep their freedom of choice.[/QUOTE] Do you have a single fact to back that up?

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52169107]Only because "Big Business International(TM)" has decided that nobody will dare resist globalism otherwise they will throw their toys out of the pram, at the wall and at the people if they don't [b]comply[/b] with what they [b]want[/b] for themselves. They need climate change (however much mankind is contributing to that change) and international problems so that they go on beating the international drum about merging everything together for their own benefit. Political power should be separated into regions so that people can keep their freedom of choice.[/QUOTE] I have a feeling that you simply don't understand the science behind climate change and therefore think you can use it as part of your conspiracy about globalism. It isn't a matter of them [i]needing[/i] it, it's a matter of it actually fucking exists, it's going to get worse in the coming decades, and it's therefore a legitimate concern of governments the world over. ~Freedom of choice~ should not exist on this issue, it's a matter of us having to work together with each other on it, or else we're fucked. Now that's not to say that there aren't people and institutions who see an opportunity in it to further themselves and their agendas, but that's true of anything. If there's opportunity in it, people will exploit it. However, climate change is not some fearmongering campaign designed for this, and your questioning of "however much mankind is contributing to that change" is dubious; we [i]are[/i] contributing to it-- you cannot have 7.5 billion people inhabiting the planet, consuming all kinds of resources, changing the landscape drastically, killing off entire species in the process, etc., and not have major consequences as a result of all this activity.

[QUOTE=Govna;52169190]I have a feeling that you simply don't understand the science behind climate change and therefore think you can use it as part of your conspiracy about globalism.[/QUOTE] No, I'm actually referring to this: [url]https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/in-searching-for-a-new-enemy-to-unite-us-we-came-up-with-the-threat-of-global-warming/[/url] If would be fine if we were actually trying to clean up our environment, but we're not. All this is doing is finding another excuse to centralize power and justify the imposition of rules on everyone from a centrally agreed point. "We decide what the science is, and you'll get your energy how we tell you to". [QUOTE=Govna]and your questioning of "however much mankind is contributing to that change" is dubious[/QUOTE] Did I actually question it just then? I told you that for the purposes of my point, it is not relevant how much we are contributing. The point I was [i]actually making[/i] remains valid whether we are contributing 0.1% or 31%. I'm not trying to make the case for not doing anything to keep our planet clean and tidy, I'm making the case for that whole thing being pushed for the purposes of global integration.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52170070]No, I'm actually referring to this: [url]https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/in-searching-for-a-new-enemy-to-unite-us-we-came-up-with-the-threat-of-global-warming/[/url] If would be fine if we were actually trying to clean up our environment, but we're not. All this is doing is finding another excuse to centralize power and justify the imposition of rules on everyone from a centrally agreed point. "We decide what the science is, and you'll get your energy how we tell you to".[/quote] Sorry, bud. Nobody "decides what the science is" but reality itself. Nobody imposes rules on anyone either, green energy agreements are made voluntarily by the countries in question. [Quote]Did I actually question it just then? I told you that for the purposes of my point, it is not relevant how much we are contributing. The point I was [i]actually making[/i] remains valid whether we are contributing 0.1% or 31%. I'm not trying to make the case for not doing anything to keep our planet clean and tidy, I'm making the case for that whole thing being pushed for the purposes of global integration.[/QUOTE] I won't waste my time disproving whatever conspirationist bullshit you're claiming. You make the allegations, you provide the peer-reviewed papers to back it up.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52171763]Sorry, bud. Nobody "decides what the science is" but reality itself. Nobody imposes rules on anyone either, green energy agreements are made voluntarily by the countries in question.[/QUOTE] Voluntarily "or else" they might not get re-elected by everyone who was educated that scientific consensus is [b]cold, hard fact.[/b]. [QUOTE=_Axel;52171763] I won't waste my time disproving whatever conspirationist bullshit you're claiming. You make the allegations, you provide the peer-reviewed papers to back it up.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763[/url] Anyway, I provided a link with evidence for what I claimed, and I didn't claim anything about climate change. I just appeared to be of a persuasion that might be claiming that, so for you, correlation was causation. * drops mic * [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threadshitting/Meme shit - Should know better * drops mic *" - Reagy))[/highlight]

i hope le pen wins

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52171903]Voluntarily "or else" they might not get re-elected by everyone who was educated that scientific consensus is [b]cold, hard fact.[/b]. [url]http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763[/url] Anyway, I provided a link with evidence for what I claimed, and I didn't claim anything about climate change. I just appeared to be of a persuasion that might be claiming that, so for you, correlation was causation. * drops mic *[/QUOTE] what you don't get to post conspiratorial bullshit but then when someone calls you out on it, post an opinion piece on peer review being bad, somehow believing that makes your original post more valid also "*drops mic*", jesus christ

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52171903]Voluntarily "or else" they might not get re-elected by everyone who was educated that scientific consensus is [b]cold, hard fact.[/b].[/quote] Scientific consensus isn't cold, hard fact - the basis of a scientific claim is that it can be disproved if false - but that doesn't mean scientific consensus is, like an opinion, equal to any other statement. If you have evidence that contradicts the consensus, bring it forth and if valid, the consensus will change. Otherwise, the consensus is the most likely to be true, no matter how much your anti-expert standpoint wants it not to be. There's a reason why people trust scientific consensus more than some nutter's conspirationist blog. Consensus is constantly put into question by scientists because it is in their own interests to do so. [Quote][url]http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763[/url] Anyway, I provided a link with evidence for what I claimed, and I didn't claim anything about climate change. I just appeared to be of a persuasion that might be claiming that, so for you, correlation was causation. * drops mic *[/QUOTE] "Evidence" being a blog that brings up an ecological theory that hasn't been relevant since the 17th century and a conspiracy theory about globalists who want to cull the Earth's population. The fuck's up next? FEMA death camps? As for your implication that peer-review not being perfect somehow means non-reviewed crap holds as much weight as legit articles, I hope I don't have to point out how stupid it is. I urge you for the umpteenth time to go take an actual course in epistemology and come back when you actually know what you're talking about. Until then, it's a waste of time to discuss those matters with you. It's not like you have any credibility left to lose anyway.

[QUOTE=mwesten1;52171922]i hope le pen wins[/QUOTE] Why, so France can go the same route as the former UK and the USA has? I for one believe a Nazi apologist and holocaust denier has no business having any form of power.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52172046]Scientific consensus isn't cold, hard fact - the basis of a scientific claim is that it can be disproved if false - but that doesn't mean scientific consensus is, like an opinion, equal to any other statement. If you have evidence that contradicts the consensus, bring it forth and if valid, the consensus will change. Otherwise, the consensus is the most likely to be true, no matter how much your anti-expert standpoint wants it not to be. There's a reason why people trust scientific consensus more than some nutter's conspirationist blog. Consensus is constantly put into question by scientists because it is in their own interests to do so. "Evidence" being a blog that brings up an ecological theory that hasn't been relevant since the 17th century and a conspiracy theory about globalists who want to cull the Earth's population. The fuck's up next? FEMA death camps? As for your implication that peer-review not being perfect somehow means non-reviewed crap holds as much weight as legit articles, I hope I don't have to point out how stupid it is. I urge you for the umpteenth time to go take an actual course in epistemology and come back when you actually know what you're talking about. Until then, it's a waste of time to discuss those matters with you. It's not like you have any credibility left to lose anyway.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what I post because you've already decided that any source I post is junk. I don't need your approval. Allez Le Pen :) Luckily for you though, France has "accidentally" sent 500,000 duplicate ballots overseas, so globalist Macron will have an advantage anyway.

Vote Macron, he's not a shitstain on the underwear of human existance.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52172361]It doesn't matter what I post because you've already decided that any source I post is junk. I don't need your approval. Allez Le Pen :) Luckily for you though, France has "accidentally" sent 500,000 duplicate ballots overseas, so globalist Macron will have an advantage anyway.[/QUOTE] I know this is a waste of my breath, but do you have a single fucking fact to back that claim up that doesn't come from some backwater nowhere website or Alex Jones affiliate?

I'm still baffled that peoples will vote for someone wanting to go back on same-sex mariage. Even if she can't possibly succeed in abolishing same-sex marriage, it's still horrible. I'm not really knowledgable on the whole economic stuff, but if there is something I can't stand, it's wanting to go back on social progress.

[QUOTE=soullink;52172925]I'm still baffled that peoples will vote for someone wanting to go back on same-sex mariage. Even if she can't possibly succeed in abolishing same-sex marriage, it's still horrible. I'm not really knowledgable on the whole economic stuff, but if there is something I can't stand, it's wanting to go back on social progress.[/QUOTE] If it doesn't affect them personally, then they don't care. "It's not my problem." "Fuck you, got mine." Etc. That's a lot of what's responsible for those sorts of retarded and callous decisions.