zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:52 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:57 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 1035
Location: Réunion
Doublespeak In Action: https://www.marianne.net/politique/video-effarante-reaction-de-la-ministre-gourault-furieuse-qu-l-oblige-repondre-l-assemblee?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1524126946 According to an En Marche minister, having a government minister answer a question asked by a parliamentarian about a law project is "authoritarian". But introducing a law project aiming at reducing the ability of parliamentarians to discuss laws is not authoritarian at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 10:09 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:34 am
Posts: 382
Location: Paris
Hey, let's revive the thread a bit.

The really fascinating thing about French politics these days is how Macron has utterly destroyed all opposition. I can't even tell who's supposed to be the opposition party.
Our alt-right and the FN are all busy beating up Marine Le Pen and the former FN leadership for, basically, not being fascist enough. It's not particularly clear what Le Pen is doing meanwhile.
The traditional right has split in two; one half has merrily joined Macron, the other half has chosen Laurent Wauquiez for a leader, an untalented and uncharismatic random fascist in a sleeveless parka.
Benoît Hamon (PS, traditional left) has left the PS and goes on being nice and friendly and not mattering at all. (A pity really, he was by far my favorite candidate).
The left is sort of united behind Mélenchon, who is trying, and failing, to rise up people against Macron. Earlier demonstration is a failure, may 1st was a disaster, and it looks like Macron simply does not care about the strikes, not one bit.

Ryusenshi wrote:
Edit: also, I don't get why Hollande was so unpopular. He had always been a weak, indecisive man; and he became a weak, indecisive President. What were people expecting?


I don't entirely get it either. As far as I can see, Hollande had run under a platform of not being Sarkozy and sucessfully implemented his policy of not being Sarkozy.
Well, actually, I do get it. More on that later.

Salmoneus wrote:
French politicians have called for a sixth republic every election since the 1980s. It's never happened, largely because a) it's not clear what's wrong with the fifth, and b) it's even less clear what could be tried in a sixth.

As for me, I'd rather have neither the Fifth nor the Fourth republic but a sensible form of parliamentary government with more proportional representation. Couldn't we just borrow the German federal constitution? It's nice, stable and fairly more representative IMO than our own.
Your other remarks on the French Constitution is fairly spot on. I should note that most of the candidate's platform were actually suitable (if the Constitution was interpreted literally) for a legislative election; none of them were presidential platforms (none of them really mentioned anything about the actual job of the President that is, mostly being Commander-in-Chief and foreign policy).

Macron mentioned once that the French still miss the king. I believe is right, that a good part of the electorate, for some weird, unexplainable reason, likes having a monarch and that Macron has played - and is still playing - that part of the electorate like a violin.
And I have to say, Macron looks and acts the part: fairly good-looking (at least compared to Hollande and Sarkozy), well-dressed (oh the agony of comments about Hollande's tie) cultured (freely quoting philosophy where it's unclear whether his immediate predecessors ever opened a book) and above all, he's always careful to look like the guy in charge. I don't know, maybe it's Freudian, but it looks like people want all that alpha male shit.

Myself, I'm fairly skeptical of Macron. As far as I can see, it's just like the Chirac years, with an extra dressing of bullshit and posturing, but hey, ultimately, it's what people wanted so that's democracy in action, I guess.

Ryusenshi wrote:
Yeah, I've watched with despair my country turn into a semi-dictatorship with a few, seemingly unimportant changes in the election system. [...]

And we're turning into a police state in the name of "opposing terrorism". Nowadays, you can't get into a public building without having someone check your bag. The only good news out of this mess? If you're a scary-looking black guy, you can easily get a job as a security agent.



I don't agree with you on that. We're not in Putin's Russia. The UK looks a lot more like a semi-dictatorship and a police state than France does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 6:12 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:31 am
Posts: 189
Location: Montrouge, France
Ars Lande wrote:
I can't even tell who's supposed to be the opposition party.

The last election seems to have broken the traditional two-party system. When there are only two major parties, it's obvious who is the "opposition party": it's the major one that's not in power. Now nobody knows who's a "major" or "minor" party.

Ars Lande wrote:
Benoît Hamon (PS, traditional left) has left the PS and goes on being nice and friendly and not mattering at all. (A pity really, he was by far my favorite candidate).

In a vacuum, I would have voted for him. In fact, I did vote for him as Deputy (unsuccessfully).

Ars Lande wrote:
I don't agree with you on that. We're not in Putin's Russia. The UK looks a lot more like a semi-dictatorship and a police state than France does.

"We're not in Putin's Russia" sounds like the Cleveland slogan We're Not Detroit: true, but hardly reassuring. There's a lot of space between "okay" and "not Putin's Russia". "It could be worse" doesn't mean there's no problem.

jmcd wrote:
A bit like how Macron was always a banker with a habit of giving the impression he knowed things rather than actually knowing them?

Are you sure you're not describing 80% of politicians?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:15 am 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Ars Lande wrote:
Hey, let's revive the thread a bit.

The really fascinating thing about French politics these days is how Macron has utterly destroyed all opposition. I can't even tell who's supposed to be the opposition party.


The natural question is: is this the result of the election, or its cause? On the one hand, widespread discontent with a party system can result in the collapse of that system. On the other hand, the rise of a centrist can destroy the system by itself, and keep it destroyed: as the centrist commands the middle, there's not enough space in any direction for a single coherent party to be able to challenge them. This is how dominant-party states are born.

It's worth noting, however, that the French party system has always been unusually fluid: the parties have traditionally been coalitions of many different factions (sometimes with their own legal status), and periodically those factions can split apart or recombine.

Quote:
The left is sort of united behind Mélenchon, who is trying, and failing, to rise up people against Macron. Earlier demonstration is a failure, may 1st was a disaster, and it looks like Macron simply does not care about the strikes, not one bit.

Sadly, the left seems to be going through a suicidal period at present. Of the 577 seats, 494 are held by parties of the centre-right, right or far-right. That's not what most would see as a groundswell of support for radical leftism; defeating Macron from the left will have to mean eroding his support in the centre-left, not rising up an illusory army of revolutionaries.
And Macron probably doesn't need to care about strikes or demonstrations; I haven't seen the specific French polling this time around, but in general, political strikes do nothing but send moderates running into the arms of whoever the strikes are against. People hate strikes.

[the strikes that work are either those directed at specific employers - where they can succeed through financial blackmail, rather than needing political success - or those that target a specific small issue in a specific sector, where the strikers can persuade the public that a particular action or situation is unjust and that it can be remedied relatively easily. Broader strikes that do not appear to be aimed at a particular easy resolution are interpreted as an unjust use of power to extort gains by using the public as hostages, and the public don't normally like that, even if they agree with the original aims of the strike.]
Quote:
Ryusenshi wrote:
I don't entirely get it either. As far as I can see, Hollande had run under a platform of not being Sarkozy and sucessfully implemented his policy of not being Sarkozy.
Well, actually, I do get it. More on that later.

To an outsider, it looked like there was discontent that he immediately abandoned all his principles and ruled as an ordinary centre-right politician. His wikipedia page even boasts that under his administration France became known as a country of "open markets... and limited governmental intervention". Is that what people voted for when they voted for the socialist party? Because the part of his campaign that we noticed over here was the promise of a 75% tax rate for high earners, which sends quite a different message...

Add in his failure to deal with unemployment and a series of terrorism attacks - which may or may not have been his fault, but which always ultimately get blamed on the leader, especially if they're ostensibly left-wing - and his collapse in support doesn't look that weird to me.

I'd analyse the collapse of the parties as:
- after decades of right-wing rule, France finally elects some socialists, and they are neither socialist nor effective
- as a result, the left of their party tries to drag them left, or just deserts
- the right of their party - some of them desert too, worried about the prospect of a shift to the left
- the remaining support for the PS is weakened, because a huge amount of it was always conditional on them being a party that could challenge for power; when they lost that status, they lost the automatic support of vast numbers of people who really just wanted "a realistic alternative to the Republicans".
- meanwhile, the right were thrown into chaos by the challenge of the far-right. Some parts tried to appease them, others to oppose them
- that crisis was then exacerbated by the usual french factionism and personality cults on the right, and undermined by scandals that ultimately resulted from their over-long stay in power. As a result, the right was unable to offer a clear and reassuring united message distinguishing them from both the centre and the far-right
- Macron came along and appealed directly to four constituencies:
a) people who just wanted someone to the left of Sarkozy/Fillon
b) people who basically wanted something centre-right, but who were scared of Fillon because he was under criminal investigation, or because he was too radically committed to destroying the state, or because he was an unpleasant, reactionary conservative who hated gay people and muslims and might well continue to drift toward the FN, or because he was a personal friend of Putin, or those who liked Fillon but doubted his ability to form a stable government given the disarray in his own party
c) people who didn't have any strong specific opinions, but who wanted change and were willing to gamble on someone different, but who looked generally reliable at the same time
d) people who just voted for the handsomist guy with the most charisma. I didn't follow the election intently, and I can't speak French, but from a distance it didn't look like Hamon or Fillon or the rest had a lot of star quality.


Quote:
Salmoneus wrote:
French politicians have called for a sixth republic every election since the 1980s. It's never happened, largely because a) it's not clear what's wrong with the fifth, and b) it's even less clear what could be tried in a sixth.

As for me, I'd rather have neither the Fifth nor the Fourth republic but a sensible form of parliamentary government with more proportional representation. Couldn't we just borrow the German federal constitution? It's nice, stable and fairly more representative IMO than our own.


Germany does have a very well-written constitution. But it certainly has its downsides too. Germany now appears trapped in a perpetual grand coalition - all but 4 years since 2005 - that is generally unpopular, between two parties that have declining popularity (even combined they barely made it past 50%), but that are yoked together in government, unable to seriously pursue the policies of either party, and that will remain so probably indefinitely. Whereas in France, discontent can at least result in rapid realignment of the party structures to meet popular demand.
Quote:
Your other remarks on the French Constitution is fairly spot on.

Reassuring to hear that!
Quote:
Macron mentioned once that the French still miss the king. I believe is right, that a good part of the electorate, for some weird, unexplainable reason, likes having a monarch and that Macron has played - and is still playing - that part of the electorate like a violin.
And I have to say, Macron looks and acts the part: fairly good-looking (at least compared to Hollande and Sarkozy), well-dressed (oh the agony of comments about Hollande's tie) cultured (freely quoting philosophy where it's unclear whether his immediate predecessors ever opened a book) and above all, he's always careful to look like the guy in charge. I don't know, maybe it's Freudian, but it looks like people want all that alpha male shit.

I don't think it's specifically male - what's unique male about being in charge? And Britain and Germany have had similar "alpha male shit" with Thatcher and Merkel, two female leaders. [Thatcher, in particular, was way more "alpha male" than any male British party leader in a century]

But yes: it's basically true that people like the sense that somebody's in charge. This is probably because a) strong rulers can get things done; b) the lack of strong rulers leads to a lot of public political wrangling, which seems chaotic and unstable, which makes people anxious; and c) people can identify with strong rulers, particularly on the world stage - when Macron or Merkel seems to be leading the world, their voters can feel proud of them and their country; when someone like May looks like a bumbling fool whom nobody respects, everyone feels a bit embarrassed. Also, of course, d) strong rulers often tend to be charismatic, and charisma has a powerful subconscious effect on primates.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:55 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:01 am
Posts: 335
Location: Just outside Hamburg, Germany
Salmoneus wrote:
And Britain and Germany have had similar "alpha male shit" with Thatcher and Merkel, two female leaders. [Thatcher, in particular, was way more "alpha male" than any male British party leader in a century]



Merkel? "Alpha male"? Wow, things really look differently from outside the country. In Germany, she is usually seen as prudent and cautious by people who like her, and as dithering and indecisive by people who don't like her. Most of the time, when she's faced with an issue or a decision, her approach seems to be to try to split the difference somehow. Her leadership style is usually the opposite of what you might call "brash".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 11:14 am 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 3197
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Raphael wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:
And Britain and Germany have had similar "alpha male shit" with Thatcher and Merkel, two female leaders. [Thatcher, in particular, was way more "alpha male" than any male British party leader in a century]



Merkel? "Alpha male"? Wow, things really look differently from outside the country. In Germany, she is usually seen as prudent and cautious by people who like her, and as dithering and indecisive by people who don't like her. Most of the time, when she's faced with an issue or a decision, her approach seems to be to try to split the difference somehow. Her leadership style is usually the opposite of what you might call "brash".


I wouldn't say 'brash', no, but I'd say her image in the English-speaking world was indeed one of strength and power.

For instance, searching 'Merkel' and 'iron', the first page alone gives us:
The Telegraph: "Europe's Iron Lady" (2011 and again 2017)
Al Jazeera: "Germany's Iron Chancellor"
The Independent: "The Iron Frau"
Christian Today: "Germany's Iron Chancellor"
Bloomberg: "Germany's Iron Chancellor"
"Firstpost.com" (apparently an Indian news site?): Theresa May is described as "more Iron Chancellor than Iron Lady" (i.e. more like Merkel than Thatcher)

Sure, this is just following the two existing nicknames (Iron Lady for female leaders, Iron Chancellor for German leaders), but they're not nicknames you get if people don't think they're vaguely appropriate (compare searching for 'Theresa May' and 'iron', which gives one or two genuine 'Iron Lady's, from when she took office, but mostly just mockery and unflattering comparisons). Indeed, the front page of results for "Iron Chancellor" even includes one article about Merkel (rather than Bismarck).


I'd say that this comes from a reputation for inflexibility (standing up to the US, holding firm on Greece, refusing to be swayed by pleas and threats from Britain), and her demeanour, which seems cautious, laconic, and relatively unemotional - in sharp contrast to the usual smiling, nervous giggling, fidgeting, self-deprecating and/or blustering politicians we usually get. And of course respect for her staying in power for so long. And the occasional shocking moment of statesmanship - admitting refugees, which is something no British politician would ever have either the guts or the power to do, even if they wanted to. I guess the details of actual day-to-day domestic German politics don't really factor into that public perception overseas - likewise, our perception of Macron has little to do with the details of his policies.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2018 2:29 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 1035
Location: Réunion
Part of the reason that the French parliament is so right-wing at the moment is the level of abstention at the legislative elections (roughly 30% of the eligible voters voted in the presidential election last year, but not in the legislatives), which I hypothesise as partly due to legislatives being seen as less important, and partly because voters were disappointed with the results of the presidential election. Another is the fact that Macron as candidate positioned himself significantly further to the centre/left compared to his current right-wing positions: http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2018/05/05/enquete-cevipof-sur-macron-le-chef-de-l-etat-percu-de-plus-en-plus-a-droite_5294725_823448.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1525524924 So there were a significant amount of ex-Socialist voters who voted Macron thinking he was centre-left and are now very disappointed. An this shows up in byelections ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lections_l%C3%A9gislatives_partielles_au_cours_de_la_XVe_l%C3%A9gislature_de_la_Cinqui%C3%A8me_R%C3%A9publique_fran%C3%A7aise ) : the main general trends in byelections in the past year are losses for En Marche and Front National and gains for a bunch of others, most notably the Republicans, the Socialists and France Insoumise. It hasn't resulted in many seat changes, but it doesn't bode well for En Marche in the European elections next year, let alone 2022.

Major strikes in France have been popular, for example the strikes in 1995 which were supported by 60% of the population, and made Alain Juppé remove parts of his reform plan. May 68 was followed by syndicalist success but electoral failure, in my opinion because of the anti-election slogans that were current at the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2018 3:54 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:34 am
Posts: 382
Location: Paris
Salmoneus wrote:
Ars Lande wrote:
Hey, let's revive the thread a bit.

The really fascinating thing about French politics these days is how Macron has utterly destroyed all opposition. I can't even tell who's supposed to be the opposition party.


The natural question is: is this the result of the election, or its cause? On the one hand, widespread discontent with a party system can result in the collapse of that system. On the other hand, the rise of a centrist can destroy the system by itself, and keep it destroyed: as the centrist commands the middle, there's not enough space in any direction for a single coherent party to be able to challenge them. This is how dominant-party states are born.


I'd venture to say: the latter. I think it's fair to say that both the PS and the UMP/LR had been uninspiring for quite some time before the election. On the other hand, Macron has been fairly good at keeping the system destroyed, much as you describe. Though, frankly, I'm not sure he really qualifies as a centrist. As Mitterrand one said, "a centrist is neither on the left, nor on the left". So far Macron has been a moderate conservative.

Quote:
I don't think it's specifically male - what's unique male about being in charge? And Britain and Germany have had similar "alpha male shit" with Thatcher and Merkel, two female leaders. [Thatcher, in particular, was way more "alpha male" than any male British party leader in a century]

But yes: it's basically true that people like the sense that somebody's in charge. This is probably because a) strong rulers can get things done; b) the lack of strong rulers leads to a lot of public political wrangling, which seems chaotic and unstable, which makes people anxious; and c) people can identify with strong rulers, particularly on the world stage - when Macron or Merkel seems to be leading the world, their voters can feel proud of them and their country; when someone like May looks like a bumbling fool whom nobody respects, everyone feels a bit embarrassed. Also, of course, d) strong rulers often tend to be charismatic, and charisma has a powerful subconscious effect on primates.

Macron's shtick is not only about being in charge, or actually acting like a leader; it's also about looking the part, sometimes a bit too much so. Being a decisive democratic leader doesn't seem to be enough around here; apparently you have to act like a king.

See a recent quote from the Elysée's spokesman:
http://abonnes.lemonde.fr/emmanuel-macr ... 08430.html
« Pour lui, le toucher est fondamental, c’est un deuxième langage, explique Bruno Roger-Petit. C’est un toucher performatif : “Le roi te touche, Dieu te guérit.” Il y a là une forme de transcendance. »
For him [Macron] the sense of touch is key, it's a second language. His touch is performative: "the king touches you, God cures you". There is a kind of transcendance."
Sorry, the source is in French and behind a paywall, so you'll have to rely on my translation. BTW, the whole thing is a reference to the Kings of France curing scrofula.
It sounds over the top, crazy even, but so far it looks like "acting like you're King of France" works.

As for your question, what's specifically male about it? Nothing of course. Except I'm not sure that France is always entirely rational or civilized. Female politicians haven't had a lot of luck; in fact I can't think of an example of a successful, popular woman in French politics.

jmcd wrote:
Major strikes in France have been popular, for example the strikes in 1995 which were supported by 60% of the population, and made Alain Juppé remove parts of his reform plan. May 68 was followed by syndicalist success but electoral failure, in my opinion because of the anti-election slogans that were current at the time.


I agree that it has worked in the past; but it's been years since they've really been popular or successful. SNCF workers are viewed (unfairly, IMO) as a bunch of entitled crybabies; left-wing leaders have made themselves ridiculous on May 1st and May 5th.

Which is a pity really. I'm not entirely confortable with living in a country with little serious democratic opposition and where the president - or at least, his court- suffers monarchical delusions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2018 2:07 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 1035
Location: Réunion
Macron himself said that "France is missing a king".

Can you elaborate on your impressions of the recent protests the past week?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 2:22 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:34 am
Posts: 382
Location: Paris
Several things about them have left me a little dejected.

- On may 1st, the black blocks decide to sack a McDonald's. Mélenchon claims it "must be the far right", despite all evidence.
- Violent insults to Libération (left to far-left newspaper) from FI supporters for reporting an accurate - but disappointing - count of the protesters.
- The turnout on May 5th demonstration is disappointed. Not to worried, Alexis Corbière (Mélenchon's second-in-command) claims a resounding success and posts a picture of the 1998 World Cup. When called up on it, claims it was an honest mistake.
The most depressing thing was to see FI sympathisers, showing up in support: "It's all right, Alexis, everyone one makes mistakes". Yeah, right, that was an honest mistake, 40,000 people place de la Bastille look just like half a million on the Champs Elysées!

Not to say that the other side wasn't deeply depressing as well. We've had the pleasure to see:
- once again, the liberal application on tear gas.
- 15 year old kids rounded up for 48 hours at the police station.
- a fairly stupid claim that "la Fête à Macron" (that's how the May 5th demonstrations were called) is ungrammatical.
- And, regarding, the destruction of the Bastille McDonald's, the nagging feeling that the Black Block were deliberately allowed to do their thing in order to discredit the whole movement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 1:10 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 1035
Location: Réunion
Mélenchon has since recanted concerning the suspicions of far right groups ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBjtm6bZHn4&t=1152s ).

For the count, pretty much every newspaper and other media outlet repeated the statistics offered them by an organisation called Occurence ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0aMJQgKjYU ). Occurence has the habit of doing the statistics for indoor events, where the counting is much simpler. And they seem to have applied very similar rules to the Fête à Macron: whoever passes this line gets counted. But the outdoor nature of the event, along with very specific nature of it, means that this same technique is not necessarily appropriate because many people were at the event without crossing the line chosen. I was at the Fête à Macron here in Réunion for more or less the whole time, but, depending on where the counters would have placed the line, I wouldn't necessarily have crossed it. And the figures offered by Occurence to journalists were way lower than even police figures (which were at 100,000, compared to the 160,000 figure of the France Insoumise and 40,000 figure of Occurence).
But I understand that insults are not the way to go, especially for a newspaper that is more or less an ally.

The idea that the CRS deliberately allow people to smash things, but restrict peaceful protesters, has been around for more than a decade, even among ex-CRS people. https://www.franceinter.fr/politique/comment-nicolas-sarkozy-instrumentalisait-casseurs-et-crs-selon-patrick-buisson And a CRS this time around has said he got notice too late: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyWPwhUjgPI.

By the way, I disagree with the description of Macron as a moderate conservative, particularly the 'moderate' part. On some issues, especially gifts to the megarich, he's to the right of Sarkozy. Who wasn't exactly known as left-leaning right-winger. Although I suppose it depends on how you define 'conservative' and what relation you accord it to the word 'right-wing'.

As for "who is the opposition?", a recent survey shows Mélenchon followed by LePen are major figures and that trade union figures are stronger at opposing Macron than the leader of the main old (however revamped in name only) right-wing party, the Republicans. http://www.europe1.fr/politique/jean-luc-melenchon-incarne-le-mieux-lopposition-a-macron-selon-un-sondage-3626780


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group