Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Florestan]

So "Trumps" and "Sanders" might not be among the candidates of the biggest parties, but some analogues can be found in the leaders of smaller parties and while they are not likely to become chancellor,

Precisely my point: it is impossible for Trumps or Sanders to pop up in the big parties.

[Florestan]

"Getting rid of the mess" is dishonest. They're trying to gain unconstitutional powers for themselves.

Quoting The Guardian only proves my point about having only one side of the picture, namely the one the euro-leftist media wants you to have.

Too bad Maciek is no longer active, he could have presented you with some interesting facts and data that are brushed under the carpet. In fact, if by any chance he reads this I urge him to do so.

[Brian]

Quoting The Guardian only proves my point about having only one side of the picture, namely the one the euro-leftist media wants you to have.

Too bad Maciek is no longer active, he could have presented you with some interesting facts and data that are brushed under the carpet. In fact, if by any chance he reads this I urge him to do so.

But the Guardian is not fabricating those stories. The last link was an opinion article, but journalists are not liars.

Do you know Maciek's political views?! I do not think you should assume that, simply because he is Polish, he will be one of the 37% who said in that poll that there is no threat to democracy.

[Florestan]

Do you know Maciek's political views?!

Yes I do. Quite well, actually.

[Brian]

In Maciek's last 400 posts (going back over 6 years) not a single mention of politics. He only talks about music. Hmmm...maybe that's an example we should all follow!

[Florestan]

In Maciek's last 400 posts (going back over 6 years) not a single mention of politics.

Ever heard of something called personal messages? 

[Brian]

Ever heard of something called personal messages? 

I wasn't arguing with you 

[Jo498]

Precisely my point: it is impossible for Trumps or Sanders to pop up in the big parties.

But my point was that neither is it as necessary as in a two-party system.

And as others have already said: "We" had Berlusconi in Italy already 20 years ago and Sanders would be considered a slightly left of center social democrat in Europe, several of which have been chancellors and presidents in European countries (e.g. Mitterand) and even more ministers and what roughly corresponds to US state governors.

[Brian]

Come to think of it Orban is another good example of a European Trump, in terms of policy (Todd and Jo are right that Berlusconi is closest by personal character).

[Madiel]

Quoting The Guardian only proves my point about having only one side of the picture, namely the one the euro-leftist media wants you to have.

Too bad Maciek is no longer active, he could have presented you with some interesting facts and data that are brushed under the carpet. In fact, if by any chance he reads this I urge him to do so.

It's funny. One only ever sees leftist. Never rightist. And leftist so often gets combined into some other term to imply that leftist media is part of some bigger slightly conspiratorial worldview.

Of course, more often than not it seems to be used in a way that means "everyone to the left of me is in on a plot", aforesaid plot usually being what the rest of us would just call... The majority view.

[Jo498]

As for "extreme" positions, Marine Le Pen's father has been around for ages and if not quite so far on the right, "tough" and loud-mouthed politicians on the conservative side were not at all rare. E.g. the bavarian Franz Josef Strauss who was one of the most powerful politicians in mid-60s through 80s Germany.

There have also been shifts what is *meant* with "left/right". 30 years ago gay marriage was unthinkable, but taxes e.g. in Germany were far higher with a conservative government than later with a "social democratic" one.
(Benefits and pensions were also higher, there was much less spread between the richest and poorest.) There was still cold war and the army was strictly for defense, today soldiers are sent to Afghanistan etc. Overall there has been a shift to the "left" on some social issues (women quota, gay marriage etc.) but to the "right" on economic ones and the post-bloc foreign policy is also not so easy to capture with the categories of former decades.

[Madiel]

There have also been shifts what is *meant* with "left/right".

Yes, and in some cases you have to wonder how on earth a particular position became associated with one end of the spectrum. Gay marriage, for example, still gets thrown around in Australia as a left/right issue despite the fact that in New Zealand and the UK it's been a leader from the right-hand side of the spectrum that has introduced gay marriage.

And why the hell does disbelief in climate change become a right-wing position? This is actually one of the issues that brings to the forefront this whole notion of leftist conspiracies. The only reason I can think of for assigning belief in climate change to the left side of politics is that scientists tell us it's a global problem that needs global solutions.

[Florestan]

Mitterand

Mitterand is actually a good example of a non-Sanders.

Bernie Sanders gives the vivid impression that he sides within the Democratic Party only faute de mieux. He never held any powerful office unless you consider the mayorship of Burlington as one such. He is emphatically not a party man and his candidacy for the primaries is not the result of a combination between his ambitious schemes and machinations on one side and party politics and negotiations on the other. If he wins the nomination it will be due entirely to Democratic rank and file and sympathizers voting for him.

Contrast him with Mitterand: he shifted sides no less than three times, being a member in four parties, starting with the fascist Cross of Fire. He held numerous power positions as a minister, among which minister of Justice and minister of Interior. He was first secretary of the Socialist Party for ten years. He was an ambitious, consumated and legendary schemer and combinationist, a quintessential party man. His candidacy was established in a party congress rife with internal divisions and power struggles.

I fail to see any similarities between the two.

[North Star]

Mitterand is actually a good example of a non-Sanders.

I fail to see any similarities between the two.

And as others have already said: [...] Sanders would be considered a slightly left of center social democrat in Europe, several of which have been chancellors and presidents in European countries (e.g. Mitterand) and even more ministers and what roughly corresponds to US state governors.

Apart from their politics, you mean?

Contrast him with Mitterand: he shifted sides no less than three times, being a member in four parties, [...] a quintessential party man.

Well that doesn't look quite right to me.  0:)

[Florestan]

Apart from their politics, you mean?

I mean what I meant from the beginning: the way the two major US parties select their candidate for the most powerful political position in the country is far more democratic than that of any major European party.

Well that doesn't look quite right to me.  0:)

A quintessential party man is someone who use a party and its machinery in order to advance his political career and whose rise to power is due to internal combinations and schemes. And there is no contradiction that when the party he is currently a member of no longer satisifies his ambitions he switches to other which offers him more prospects of success without ever looking back.

[Jo498]

You are right that Mitterrand was not an outsider. But this only illustrates that most European systems cannot really be compared to the US two-party-System. And as someone said differences between those two parties' positions are more like the distance between M and N but they are marketed as if it was A vs. Z.

My point with mentioning Mitterrand was of course that so-called "socialist" (rather social democratic) politicians with similar economical and political stances as Sanders have been mainstream in Europe for decades.

It's probably not an accident that another encrusted (almost)two-party system like Britain produced a Corbyn who is farther to the left than most mainstream labour/social democratic politician in countries with 4 or more parties. (These four are usually one mainstream conservative, one mainstream social democratic and one each to the "left" and "right" of these, at least in some issues.)

Another main difference at least in Germany is that in principle/theory one does not vote for a person at all (or more precisely, the decisive vote is for the party, the personal vote is not for the potential chancellor but for the member of parliament) Therefore it's not obvious that an "undemocratic" choice of candidate by the party is a fault at all.

[Florestan]

My point with mentioning Mitterrand was of course that so-called "socialist" (rather social democratic) politicians with similar economical and political stances as Sanders have been mainstream in Europe for decades.

That is true.

Another main difference at least in Germany is that in principle/theory one does not vote for a person at all (or more precisely, the decisive vote is for the party, the personal vote is not for the potential chancellor but for the member of parliament) Therefore it's not obvious that an "undemocratic" choice of candidate by the party is a fault at all.

Principles and theories are one thing, reality is another. And reality shows that in Europe a vote for the party X is actually a vote for that party´s boss or strong man. One votes for CDU and it all ends up with Frau Merkel deciding what should be done not only in Germany but in the whole EU. And she must have screwed things up big time if even her own party is dissatisfied with the outcome and openly warns her about that.

[Karl Henning]

In Maciek's last 400 posts (going back over 6 years) not a single mention of politics. He only talks about music. Hmmm...maybe that's an example we should all follow!

Ever heard of something called personal messages? 

I wasn't arguing with you 

In fact, I see Andrei underscoring Brian's point hereby    0:) 

[Florestan]

In fact, I see Andrei underscoring Brian's point hereby    0:) 

Yes, indeed, but I guess it depends on everybody´s temperament. My username is Florestan, not Eusebius. 

EDIT: I see nothing wrong with people expressing their political views in a thread devoted exactly to politics and frankly I am rather unpleasantly surprised when suggestions are made that we´d better shut up on the issue. But maybe my firsthand experience with totalitarianism makes me particularly sensitive on this matter.

[Karl Henning]

I observe a difference between telling someone he cannot express something, and finding for oneself that wisdom often resides in saying less.