Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I'm only peripherally interested in French politics because if my wife, she follows it pretty closely.  She listens to a French classical music station that has news every day.

The French President has a lot more authority than ours, mostly due to DeGaulle.  He can appoint, or not appoint, the prime minister as he wishes.  It's an odd situation.  I expect street protests soon, they happen often anyway.

Speculation is that Macron expected the right to win the snap election but they came in third.  The left got the most votes, but not a majority.  He wanted to dinimish the right by giving them power and then noting they didn't get much done, according to one notion.  Then in the election for President in 2027, his party would have that as a position on which to run.

Le Pen's party is often called "far right", but interestingly, she's a socialist on economic issues.  She would be far left in the US, but for her parties stance on immigration and the EU.

Isn't this what you want?

Explain more.

Maybe later. Gotta run.

CDawg has touched on it a bit.

it's just words

as history has shown,........ they rarely do anything, especially of importance that actually changes something.

Politicians of course tend to be a bit notorious for changing their positions.  It's often not a sign it's genuine when it's in a campaign.  They often say stuff to get elected, of course, and then ... well, blame the other side for not doing any of it.

Changing positions is "OK" with me, in general, but I like to see something more substantive as to why.  Otherwise it's just words.

They do but overall they tend to try to do what they campaigned on. Obviously they can't just arbitrarily change the law to whatever they say.

Isn't this what you want?

Politicians of course tend to be a bit notorious for changing their positions.  It's often not a sign it's genuine when it's in a campaign.  They often say stuff to get elected, of course, and then ... well, blame the other side for not doing any of it.

Changing positions is "OK" with me, in general, but I like to see something more substantive as to why.  Otherwise it's just words.

From that list:

• No tax on tips.  
• Build the Wall.
• Fracking.
• Pro Police.
• Fix Economy.

One at a time:

• No tax on tips:  This is a flat out campaign gimmick no matter who proposes it.  Functionally it would be a mess.  Everyone and I mean everyone would immediately start trying to convert salary to tip.  Then the accountants at the IRS would have to try to sort all of that out.  Pure campaign gimmick, I didn't like it when Trump said it, I don't like it from Harris either.  
• Build the Wall:  The immigration issue has been my #1 issue since WAY before Trump.  Back in 2014 Amnesty came within a day of happening.  Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor were in favor and they were drumming up support.  The vote was scheduled for mid-June, 2014 and it looked like it would pass.  Then, on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 Eric Cantor got taken out in a Republican Primary by David Brat.  This is the only time that a sitting House Majority Leader had EVER been defeated in a Primary.  Brat's winning issue was immigration.  Eric Cantor, like most elected R's took the donor position.  He did the bidding of his donors to get them the cheap labor that they wanted.  Brat attacked on that issue and beat him despite being outspent 40:1.  This has been a grass-roots push from the word go.  All the media (even fox especially initially), both parties, the academics, all of the "elites" are trying to flood the country with unskilled laborers.  Brat showed that standing up to the donors and taking the side of the American People on the Immigration issue could be a winning strategy.  As soon as that happened, rank-and-file R's in the  HoR backed away.  Trump then took that and ran with it.  He was under constant attack from day-1 because speaking against the donors does that but he won in 2016 because of the immigration issue.  Then he got elected and . . . didn't build much wall.  I'm still for the wall and restricting immigration like I was before Trump and for that matter before Brat and I still will be after Trump, Harris, and Walz have all left the national stage.  So where does this put me now?  Well, I obviously don't trust Harris on this issue.  The Biden Administration suddenly deciding to get tough on immigration six months before an election isn't an indication that they've suddenly decided to  do the right thing, it is an indication that their pollsters are telling them that the immigration issue is a millstone around their necks.  I don't trust Trump to actually get much done on the issue either but at least with him I'm fairly confident that he is on the right side.  
• Fracking:  Increased Oil production mostly from fracking in Wyoming, the Dakotas, etc has been a HUMONGOUS boon to our economy and it has kept our trade deficit in check.  We need to do as much of it as we can.  If you actually believe that the D's are in favor, you are nuts.  
• Pro Police:  Harris supported BLM and jumped all over the Jussie Smollet Hate-Hoax.  She even solicited donations for bail for looters who burned  Walz' Minneapolis.  Before that, she used to be a somewhat tough prosecutor.  Then she wasn't.  My impression here is that Harris simply goes where she sees the political wind blowing.  Trump much more clearly believes in law and order dating back to taking out an ad after the Central Park atrocity.  Harris, on the contrary, invited one of the perpetrators of said atrocity to speak at the DNC.  
• Fix Economy:  This is just campaign babble.  That isn't a criticism of Harris.  Everyone says it.  I'm just saying that it is meaningless.