• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 2017 French Presidential Election

At least the new French President speaks better English than the American one!
 
Master PO said:
incorrect!

the founders created the house of representatives to be a body for the people, which are directly elected by the people

the senate WAS a body directly elected by the state governments and not the people

the president is not elected by the people but by electors chosen by the states who the people elect.

both the senate and president were meant to be non democratic votes.


Mixed government is a form of government that incorporates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, the issues are decided variedly, for instance some issues are determined by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person. The idea of mixed government is treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mixed-government/

The Federalist No. 40
On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
New York Packet
Friday, January 18, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York:

"THE second point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution"

OUR AMERICAN FOUNDERS SPEAKING OF OUR ......MIXED CONSTITUTION[/B].


As John Adams wrote to Benjamin Rush in 1790:

No nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.
Click to expand...

A mix of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy? :lamo

That is just ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with a democracy because good democracies are protected by the Separation of powers, no need for aristocracy or a monarchy. Having monarchy and aristocracy in the mix is just wrong because they have no added value in a political system whatsoever.
 
Peter King said:
A mix of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy? :lamo
Click to expand...

no nation under Heaven ever was, now is, nor ever will be qualified for a Republican Government, unless you mean ... resulting from a Balance of three powers, the Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Democratical ... Americans are particularly unfit for any Republic but the Aristo-Democratical Monarchy.

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

James Madison from the federalist paper #40 --THE second point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention--4--12 June 1788 --But, Sir, we have the consolation that it is a mixed Government: That is, it may work sorely on your neck; but you will have some comfort by saying, that it was a Federal Government in its origin.

its sad when a person denies fact

That is just ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with a democracy because good democracies are protected by the Separation of powers, no need for aristocracy or a monarchy. Having monarchy and aristocracy in the mix is just wrong because they have no added value in a political system whatsoever.
Click to expand...

democracy has a FORM of government is unstable and leads to failure.

mixed government has a only an element of democracy in it, that being the house of representatives, this is how the rights of the people, their interest is preserved.

plenty of need for the aristocracy of the state governments, and keeping our Monarchical which we currently have
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
This thread is meant to be discussing the French presidential election. I can see how wider issues of democracy relate to the subject, but they are not the subject. If you wish to discuss whether democracy is relevant to modern Western society you should do that in a thread on that topic. No more discussion not directly relating to the French election here please.
 
Verax said:
You said that after linking pictures of the French under attack.

So not death? Do they just deserve a Molitov Cocktail to the body? Just some light 3rd degree burns?

I know you're mad your fascist tool failed, but there's no need to wish people harm for it.
Click to expand...
Hell dood...those pictures were French cops being firebombed by their own citizens. Dont you follow the news in France?
 
Carjosse said:
According to surveys released by Belgian media, Macron has won handily, winning the same percentage of the vote or better than the polls predicted, ~62%.
Click to expand...

Pretty easy to win when one voting bloc 'the Muslims' are 98% in your pocket.
 
slick said:
Pretty easy to win when one voting bloc 'the Muslims' are 98% in your pocket.
Click to expand...

Care to prove this isn't just a religious and ignorant fallacy?
 
slick said:
Pretty easy to win when one voting bloc 'the Muslims' are 98% in your pocket.
Click to expand...

How many Muslims do you think there are in France, do you think that 65% of the country is Muslim?
 
zyzygy said:
10 percent of the population.
Click to expand...

It is actually hard to answer this question precisely but we can make an educated guess first of all serious surveys regarding religion tell us that there is about 2.1 millions people who would define themselves as practicing Muslim ( against 11.5 millions Catholics for instance ).

It gets tricky when you try to identify people of probable "Muslim origins" aka people who emigrated ( or are descendants of peoples that emigrated ) from a country predominantly Muslim. Based on the most extensive studies based on insee and Ined Immigration data this would directly concern about 3.9 to 4.6 million people ( mostly from north Africa and Africa ) over the course of three generations.

It is important to realise that not all of them are practicing Muslims or identify as Muslims. Surveys show us that about 1/3 of them would identify as non believers ( agnostics, atheist ... ) while only 40% would clearly identify as ( practicing ) Muslim. About half of children from a mixed marriage would identify as agnostic or Christians.


With a population of 67 millions inhabitants in France, this would give us a percentage of about : 5% to 7% of french "muslim" adding muslim foreigners, the numbers could climb up to 5+ millions muslims leaving in france ( up to 8% ). While the number of ten percent is often used it does not reflect reality unless you think that a couple millions of illegal immigrants are currently roaming in the french countryside.



It is true however that muslim make up a higher percentage of the cities population ( about 10%+ in the biggest ones ) due to the fact that 97 % of migrants settled in cities of over 10 thousand inhabitants. The highest numbers being in paris and its suburbs.

The percentage of Muslim in the french population could however reach 10% between 2040 and 2050 if current immigration levels from africa were rise up to levels similar to the ones of the early 2000s. It would also require the second and third generation Muslims to reverse a trend that saw their fertility rate falling toward the 2.05 replacement level ( similar to the rest of the french population ).

While there is a crisis within the french muslim population wich is disproportionately struck by unemployment and seems to face ( like the french population as a whole ) some kind of identity crisis there is no fatality in the current situation wich saw a ****ed up minority rejecting the republic.

Even the Italian immigrants faced similar rejection and issues in the 20s and 30s. I even remember old articles explaining how "those people" where supposedly unassimilable and religiously incompatible ( lol ) as there loyalty was to the pope rather then the gallican church or the republic. There high fertility coupled with the french demographic collapse ( similar to the current german's one ) would lead to the collapse of french civilization ! Some demographers were then projecting a french population of about 30 millions by 2030 :lol:

Muslims are a sizeable minority and will still be one in the foreseeable future, whether they assimilate depends mostly on our ability to strengthen our economy in order to assimilate them efficiently and properly deal with the wackos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom