However, the processing of the info was once again weird ...
While the general atmosphere was rather to swallow good, what am I saying, the excellent results obtained by the police forces this weekend, the record of the thugs was announced BETTER than that of last weekend
I am quoting this statement and pointing out that it is from a man on the left, but I have also heard it on TV.
"The show that Paris gave is catastrophic. The violence was less radical but the damage is probably more important than a week before" estimated this Sunday on France Inter the first deputy mayor of Paris, Emmanuel Grégoire.
In short, we should know if the police were really effective against the thugs or if the thugs did more damage than last week ???
Because all the same it is against the thugs that the police must intervene in the first place, right?
In their attempts to frighten people and attract audiences and by broadcasting and rebroadcasting the many more or less unpunished (or delayed) abuses by thugs, televisions paradoxically played the game ... don't know who because it doesn't serve the state or the GJs.
As they say in the countryside: it's a bit of a petaudière and things go wild in high places.
Alain Duhamel, who is not particularly on the left, was very scathing this Sunday evening during the newspaper of France 2.
https://www.france.tv/france-2/journal- ... 20h00.html
Daniel Cohn-Bendit (past and present support of the President) intervened a little later and his judgment is fair enough:
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/tr ... 92573.html
As I said a little earlier in this subject: the evolution in the form of a tumble in such a short time is truly astounding in view of the quality (apparent to this day) of the candidate.
BE CAREFUL ... Daniel CB once again castigated our electoral system: 25% (1st round) is 60% (second round) then 80% (assembly)
EXCEPT: and here we have to take a serious look at the real figures and not in the media incantations ....
The current President has NOT DONE 25% in the 1st round as is suggested everywhere, thinking that 25% of the French would have been FOR the candidate Macron.
Because if he made 25% of the SUFFRAGES EXPRESSED he only made 18% of the registrants ... which is VERY DIFFERENT.
This is why I have always found this suicidal insurance that was his (real or feigned) crazy to assert that he had elected on his program ... it is a kind of diversion of reality limit method coué (even sickly)
And this MORE than in the second round, as Mediapart (which is on the left) had already deciphered in May 2017 “among the adults who live in France, there are more people who did not vote for no candidate other than people who voted for Macron. ”
In this graph, we subtract the scores of the two candidates from the number of adults living in France according to INSEE.
https://blogs.mediapart.fr/clab/blog/08 ... -resultats
It is therefore in the end a weak candidate who gave birth to a weak power and who believed himself strong who won the presidential elections.
What we finally find perfectly in the situation today
