Macron won with 58.5% of the vote to Le Pen's 41.5%. That's got to be pure BS.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
I think she is complict in the game played. She became erratic in the later strategy offered, purposefully throwing it, by becoming absurd. Instead of trying to appeal too anybody stuck in the middle.
Of course, she had too. It's also part of the game. They have to be opposite. If one says this, the other must do the opposite.
But if they have a bar, and a hammer over her head. Court, jail, or worse. Was she anything more than a dog whistle.
It was rigged. He didn't gain popularity. But she lost it. Not that she ever had the status quo. But he never had the majority. All of a sudden in an election year. He gained those numbers. They could only hate the opposition more, according to an easier narrative. Because that game rigs it, look at the choice, it's not accidental. What happened to anybody else? She is therefore complict.
It seems like They are really desperate. They won't even take a chance throwing a bone to the French populace and give them a compromised Le Pen. That could have bought them a couple of years.
It's like They don't remember the Yellow Vests, who seemed like they'd had it up their globes oculaires before all the COVID lockdowns. I hate when They just push more chips into the center of the table. Gives me the feeling They don't plan on folding, tipping their hat, and walking away gracefully.
It's not supposed today. Part of the agenda. Depopulation. It is dividing us completely, or importantly subduing compliance by any means. Those gloves are off. Cut cut and slice slice. 1000 more cuts. Because the technology has outpaced the supply. But in order to implement it, it forces opposition and debt. Until any numbers tip, causing it. The people behind it, an unseen hand pulling the strings, don't care about anything else other than their later version of profit. They've rigged the game.
She might have been the best thing for France, decisive change. By slicing immediately away at that knot. Empowering god knows what that policy is, it became a leap of faith. Until it also lied, except in its obvious intent. But from immediately upseting it. She didn't play her hand, couldn't to be precise. She blew it. Had too in fact. Her timing and policy was off, and irrelevant. She served the game. Provoking it. But they would've just as easily assassinated her. Instead of turning her into a much simpler loser, according to a much easier narrative. A dog whistle, leading that herd into capitulation, into the last round up, git along little dogie, and it's off to the abattoir. Not that they will yield, but it forces policy, causing any agenda. Because there are still a 1000 more knots to tie, or 1000 cuts to be made. Until they continue to implode. But by his way, being a liar, where he promises stability and delivers nothing but protest. At least he bluffs any agenda through, instead of taking a guillotine to it.
Back to the topic. There's no way he gained all that popularity in an election year. Unless she lost it. Think about what that means.
I take it that when you say They, you're referring to (((they))). If that is the case, (((they))) would never fold and walk away. (((They))) are responsible for nearly every tragic event throughout the course of history, except natural disasters and maybe a few others. (((They))) prey on human kindness and compassion and take for granted that because of those things, (((they))) still remain on this Earth in some number. (((They))) have shown countless times that (((they))) will never change.