|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Norway28700 Posts
On January 21 2017 21:14 farvacola wrote:
I mean, you can hone in on the political feasibility of a specific candidate like Wilders and determine that he has little chance of actually swinging any influence his way, but that's not the end of the conversation. The populist bent that he represents isn't going anywhere, and therein lies the area folks opposed ought focus on.
It's definitely not the end of the conversation. I think Euphorbus' overall point is very valid, but specifically france netherlands UK Germany all seem to have measures in place that make a right (or left) wing extremist with only 20-25% of the vote head of state extremely unlikely. The newer democracies/less stable and prosperous countries (among them, Poland and Hungary) are much more vulnerable to populist efforts. And to be clear - if Poland or Hungary were really influential countries, we'd be talking a lot more about them, what's happening there is absolutely terrible.
|
On January 21 2017 21:18 Euphorbus wrote:
My understanding is that other parties are campaigning on not joining in a coalition with Wilders, but that they have done exactly that in the past.
You really believe them? lol
If Wilders is biggest, all right wing parties will flock around him.
No they won't. Once, when the party was new he got into a government. It blew up and no one has worked with him since.
Heck we are currently running a government that doesn't even hold a majority.
But even if there is a hypothetical scenario in which people are willing to work with Wilders, doing so will dilute his populist agenda and if he tries to go to far his partners will drop him, triggering a new election.
Our political systems are much more robust then the US is because we're not a 2 party system and rules exist that stop a dysfunctional government from staying in power (A gridlock like the US had under Obama is nigh impossible).
Yes, populism and nationalism is on the rise. Yes it is worrying to me but there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. People are allowed to have different opinions and vote. All we can try to do is show them why their way is wrong or will not work.
|
On January 21 2017 21:18 Euphorbus wrote:
My understanding is that other parties are campaigning on not joining in a coalition with Wilders, but that they have done exactly that in the past.
You really believe them? lol
If Wilders is biggest, all right wing parties will flock around him.
Nop.
Take France. The FN is at 25%. Yet they have 3 "deputés" (mps), 0 senators, don't hold any region, not a single departement and no big cities.
They are a totally marginal party.
The reason is that we have a system where you need to win two rounds elections to get anywhere. And there are more people who absolutely loath the fn and would have anyone at all rather than them in power. So they might do 40% in some places with the second party at 25, they still lose the second round.
Because of this, no one wants to make alliance with them, because you would lose your own voters immediately.
In 2002, Le Pen father made it to the second round of the presidential election. He made 23% or so. In the second round, he was still at 23%, because the whole left, me included voted for Chirac (that was hard).
So again. Le Pen has a very very worrying support in some segments of the population: mainly rural, mainly lowly educated, mainly workers, plus the catholics integrists, some ultra traditionalists and the hardcore nazis. But she is not getting in power anytime soon unless an extraordinary chain of events happen. There are simply too many people who will block her in any way they can.
There are historical reasons behind this. The first is that De Gaulle wrote the constitution specifically to make sure that the extreme parties (at the time mainly the communists) were left out. But also because the fn is linked very very clisely with two of the darkest pages if french history: the collaboration and the algeria war. That's a big difference with a Trump. While he might not be wirth a kopek more as a human being, he doesn't represent a party that was founded by nazi nostalgics and torturers of the OAS (the more hardcore pro french algeria illegal faction in the army at the time). Le Pen is and that's something many people won't ever forget.
|
|
|
On January 21 2017 20:29 Euphorbus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 11:35 Scarecrow wrote:
I'm in the same boat, America seems to be unable to join the rest of the developed world due to the sheer ignorance and gullibility of half its voting base and the general corruption on both sides of politics. It's going to get way more ugly at some point when the weight of incompetence and corruption lead to further, more widespread, collapses in basic infrastructure and quality of life. I don't think that is fair. UK left Brexit. Netherlands are about to elect Wilders. Front National in France. All Germany 'needs' is a charismatic demagogue and their far right and populist will be triggered. Expect Golden Dawn to do really well in Greece, after Syriza was destroyed by the European Central Bank and European Commission. Hungary with Obran has a actually elected dictator already. Poland isn't much better off. They also elected some fuckface that is turning back the clock. And even if moderate mainstream status quo parties do get reelected in Europe, it won't solve anything for the next election. After banks deregulated by the traditional center-left, who joined the right in their neoliberal views, and the banks almost crashed human civilization (don't underestimate how close we were to lose it completely), people just voted right wing all across Europe, doubling down on the neoliberalism that caused the crisis. Why? Because when the economy is important, you vote right wing. This resulted in austerity, which was horrible for the EU economy. The US economy actually did great. The economy recovered. The jobs did not. Or at least not the same jobs for the same people. And Obama failed to take any credit. Trump gets 2000 jobs to not leave at the cost of a tax cut, and he is a national hero. CNN says since 2010, there are 14 million new jobs. (other numbers are just above 10 million) Of course, Obama didn't personally create those. But there is a stark difference between Europe and the US. And part of the difference is the job numbers and the lack of austerity in the US. And then we have the EU, Russia with free play now because of Trump, and the euro. There are huge weaving errors in the European institutions. Ones we refused to fix. And inside institutions we cannot live without, though the average voter will see this differently. People were punished in their wallet for voting wrong. What did they do. They doubled down even harder on voting wrong. And that is in Europe, where people seem more accepting of facts, science, and reason. Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 16:49 Scarecrow wrote:
Ironic that the only good pick so far is a guy called 'Mad Dog'. It seems Trump's trying to make every department a mess by either picking incompetent heads or ones that are ideologically opposed to their department's purpose. This is 100% the story of his presidency so far. Every department is going to grind to a halt because the people Trump picked will be unable to even talk with the top management. Maybe this is his strategy. Or maybe returning favours is just that much more important to him. Why would you pick the people you picked? So odd. Is it really impossible to find someone that actually aligns with you and that also knows something about the subject, at least? Rick Perry wanted to close down the department of energy, since he didn't know what the department of energy does. But there must be someone out there with a science or engineering background, who does know what the department does, and who also would like to close it down. And some people see and look at this and they see 'Trump draining the swamp'.
TIL I live in a dictatorship.
It's annoying that isn't a leftist haven is suddenly a dictatorship.
Some people just dislike socialism. You know, people, who actually experienced it.
|
Ok, so the argument for France is that since you have such a democratic deficit, you are safe. That's ironic.
Some people just dislike socialism. You know, people, who actually experienced it.
You mean people who lived under the fist of the USSR voting in office a Putin-wannabe?
I can only refer to Orban's own words, which you probably know better, and untranslated, than me. So no point in debating it.
Socialism? Really?
|
On January 21 2017 21:34 Euphorbus wrote:
Ok, so the argument for France is that since you have such a democratic deficit, you are safe. That's ironic.
Nop. Just that our democracy is based on majorities, local and national. And that the FN doesn't get majorities anywhere because they are hated with an incredible intensity by most people.
|
On January 21 2017 21:34 Euphorbus wrote:Ok, so the argument for France is that since you have such a democratic deficit, you are safe. That's ironic. Show nested quote +
Some people just dislike socialism. You know, people, who actually experienced it.
You mean people who lived under the fist of the USSR voting in office a Putin wannabe?
You shouldn't comment on EU politics if you are clueless about it.
|
On January 21 2017 21:38 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 21:34 Euphorbus wrote:Ok, so the argument for France is that since you have such a democratic deficit, you are safe. That's ironic.
Some people just dislike socialism. You know, people, who actually experienced it.
You mean people who lived under the fist of the USSR voting in office a Putin wannabe? You shouldn't comment on EU politics if you are clueless about it.
You shouldn't comment on your own country's politics, if you know nothing about it.
But I expect you do actually. You just prefer a dictator over what you see as 'socialism'. You aren't alone. It is one of the reasons Trump won. And you'd rather feign ignorance rather than admit it.
|
On January 21 2017 21:33 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 20:29 Euphorbus wrote:On January 21 2017 11:35 Scarecrow wrote:
I'm in the same boat, America seems to be unable to join the rest of the developed world due to the sheer ignorance and gullibility of half its voting base and the general corruption on both sides of politics. It's going to get way more ugly at some point when the weight of incompetence and corruption lead to further, more widespread, collapses in basic infrastructure and quality of life. I don't think that is fair. UK left Brexit. Netherlands are about to elect Wilders. Front National in France. All Germany 'needs' is a charismatic demagogue and their far right and populist will be triggered. Expect Golden Dawn to do really well in Greece, after Syriza was destroyed by the European Central Bank and European Commission. Hungary with Obran has a actually elected dictator already. Poland isn't much better off. They also elected some fuckface that is turning back the clock. And even if moderate mainstream status quo parties do get reelected in Europe, it won't solve anything for the next election. After banks deregulated by the traditional center-left, who joined the right in their neoliberal views, and the banks almost crashed human civilization (don't underestimate how close we were to lose it completely), people just voted right wing all across Europe, doubling down on the neoliberalism that caused the crisis. Why? Because when the economy is important, you vote right wing. This resulted in austerity, which was horrible for the EU economy. The US economy actually did great. The economy recovered. The jobs did not. Or at least not the same jobs for the same people. And Obama failed to take any credit. Trump gets 2000 jobs to not leave at the cost of a tax cut, and he is a national hero. CNN says since 2010, there are 14 million new jobs. (other numbers are just above 10 million) Of course, Obama didn't personally create those. But there is a stark difference between Europe and the US. And part of the difference is the job numbers and the lack of austerity in the US. And then we have the EU, Russia with free play now because of Trump, and the euro. There are huge weaving errors in the European institutions. Ones we refused to fix. And inside institutions we cannot live without, though the average voter will see this differently. People were punished in their wallet for voting wrong. What did they do. They doubled down even harder on voting wrong. And that is in Europe, where people seem more accepting of facts, science, and reason. On January 21 2017 16:49 Scarecrow wrote:
Ironic that the only good pick so far is a guy called 'Mad Dog'. It seems Trump's trying to make every department a mess by either picking incompetent heads or ones that are ideologically opposed to their department's purpose. This is 100% the story of his presidency so far. Every department is going to grind to a halt because the people Trump picked will be unable to even talk with the top management. Maybe this is his strategy. Or maybe returning favours is just that much more important to him. Why would you pick the people you picked? So odd. Is it really impossible to find someone that actually aligns with you and that also knows something about the subject, at least? Rick Perry wanted to close down the department of energy, since he didn't know what the department of energy does. But there must be someone out there with a science or engineering background, who does know what the department does, and who also would like to close it down. And some people see and look at this and they see 'Trump draining the swamp'. TIL I live in a dictatorship. It's annoying that isn't a leftist haven is suddenly a dictatorship. Some people just dislike socialism. You know, people, who actually experienced it.
I experience it in Norway, it's pretty much perfect here.
But seriously, the problem with Orban is not that he is right wing. It's that he is systematically destroying your democracy (And also that he is a xenophobic anti semitic pond scum but even that is not the point)
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
Orban is a populist and a leader of a brand of non-liberal democracy, that's ways away from a dictator. (as a country that had a socialist background, I don't take the "either Orban or socialism" argument seriously)
|
On January 21 2017 21:34 Euphorbus wrote:
Ok, so the argument for France is that since you have such a democratic deficit, you are safe. That's ironic.
No. How is a not-shitty election system "a democratic deficit"? France has a system with two elections, to make sure that a minority can not rule just because the country is fragmented into multiple different parties.
If one party is at 25%, and 4 other parties split the remaining 75% equally, but all of the voters of those 4 other parties would rather have anyone but party a, this system helps ensure that.
In Germany, we have a system where we elect the parliament, and the parliament then elects the government. A working government usually has a majority in parliament, because parliament elected them. This is usually more than one party building a coalition, and having talks about which part of their respective agendas they pursue in that coalition.
Both systems have the big advantage of making it possible to have more than 2 political parties.
I have no idea why you think that that is a "democratic deficit". A two party system where you only have the choice between a Clinton and a Trump has a democratic deficit.
|
If 25% of the electorate vote on a certain party, and they get 0 senators, that is a democratic deficit. They ought to get near 25%.
In a functional democracy, people should be able to 'vote wrong'. You cannot say France doesn't have the same problem as the US just because the way the system works annuls 25% of the vote. And it's not like those voters don't realize it.
|
On January 21 2017 21:42 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Tone it down.
Well, it's kinda the same as that one guy who "educated" the Holocaust survivor on Reddit, that Trump really is Hitler, and he's wrong saying that they aren't the same.
But yeah, I won't argue with people hopelessly stuck in their leftist bubble.
On January 21 2017 21:43 mustaju wrote:
Orban is a populist and a leader of a brand of non-liberal democracy, that's ways away from a dictator. (as a country that had a socialist background, I don't take the "either Orban or socialism" argument seriously)
Sadly, currently there is no real alternative.
The left shattered into half a dozen parties, with maybe 1 of them having any weight left.
The other relatively big party alienated most of their base by moving really hard to the left (they were the actual racists and anti-semites.)
Most of the youth has no real option to vote. The vote turnouts are extremely low.
There is a reason ~15% of the votes on the last referendum were spoilt ballots.
There is simply noone to support.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 21 2017 21:18 Euphorbus wrote:
My understanding is that other parties are campaigning on not joining in a coalition with Wilders, but that they have done exactly that in the past.
You really believe them? lol
If Wilders is biggest, all right wing parties will flock around him.
Not actively campaigning on it but they're saying they won't govern with him.
Last time when Wilders supported a government (as Gorsameth mentioned) only the left parties said they wouldn't govern with him. The parties he supported (VVD and CDA) never said they wouldn't govern with him in that election (it was actually a pretty big talking point in that election). Only after he blew it up did those parties say they were unwilling to govern with him.
So the time line is this:
Leftist parties say they don't want to govern with Wilders, right wing parties (CDA not really right wing but w/e) say they're not against it in principle --> government forms with Wilders supporting VVD and CDA --> Government collapses due to Wilders --> CDA and VVD say they're unwilling to govern with Wilders.
On January 21 2017 21:14 farvacola wrote:
I mean, you can hone in on the political feasibility of a specific candidate like Wilders and determine that he has little chance of actually swinging any influence his way, but that's not the end of the conversation. The populist bent that he represents isn't going anywhere, and therein lies the area folks opposed ought focus on.
It's not going anywhere but we've had it since the early 2000's. They've never really got further than around 20% of the vote though so the threat of them is kind of overstated (In the Netherlands at least).
|
On January 21 2017 21:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 21:34 Euphorbus wrote:
Ok, so the argument for France is that since you have such a democratic deficit, you are safe. That's ironic.
No. How is a not-shitty election system "a democratic deficit"? France has a system with two elections, to make sure that a minority can not rule just because the country is fragmented into multiple different parties. If one party is at 25%, and 4 other parties split the remaining 75% equally, but all of the voters of those 4 other parties would rather have anyone but party a, this system helps ensure that. In Germany, we have a system where we elect the parliament, and the parliament then elects the government. A working government usually has a majority in parliament, because parliament elected them. This is usually more than one party building a coalition, and having talks about which part of their respective agendas they pursue in that coalition. Both systems have the big advantage of making it possible to have more than 2 political parties. I have no idea why you think that that is a "democratic deficit". A two party system where you only have the choice between a Clinton and a Trump has a democratic deficit.
To be honest he has a point, and there are arguments to say that the opinion of 25% voters is not being represented in our institutions.
I personally disagree though. Take the green party. They are smaller than the FN and yet they have way more MPs, because they are not rejected like the FN is and can win second rounds. Their share of MPs is more or less in line with their popular support nationwide.
I think a system that somewhat takes into account both the support and the rejection of each party is quite smart.
|
On January 21 2017 21:43 mustaju wrote:
Orban is a populist and a leader of a brand of non-liberal democracy, that's ways away from a dictator. (as a country that had a socialist background, I don't take the "either Orban or socialism" argument seriously)
Well, you should look into how he is changing hungarian institutions to his advantage, suppressing the free press etc...
Hungarian is much, much less democratic than it was a few years ago, and Orban certainly is a authoritative leader. "Dictator" is probably too much at the moment.
|
On January 21 2017 21:43 mustaju wrote:
Orban is a populist and a leader of a brand of non-liberal democracy, that's ways away from a dictator. (as a country that had a socialist background, I don't take the "either Orban or socialism" argument seriously)
Yes, it is exactly the same! The holocaust and Hitler.
You are only saying what you are saying because you are Hungarian.
So the time line is this:
Leftist parties say they don't want to govern with Wilders, right wing parties (CDA not really right wing but w/e) say they're not against it in principle --> government forms with Wilders supporting VVD and CDA --> Government collapses due to Wilders --> CDA and VVD say they're unwilling to govern with Wilders.
You act like this is some secret or some arcane knowledge. Everyone knows what happens. It is just that you are being gullible into believing CDA and VVD will rather sit in the opposition bench for 4 years than enter a coalition with Wilders.
BTW, CDA is surely right wing. They are the traditional conservative family value Christian party in the Netherlands. They are the CDU of the Netherlands. How can they not be right wing?
Just like Wilders took only 5 minutes, after the election result came in, to break his main campaign promises, so CDA and VVD will do the same.
|
On January 21 2017 21:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2017 21:43 mustaju wrote:
Orban is a populist and a leader of a brand of non-liberal democracy, that's ways away from a dictator. (as a country that had a socialist background, I don't take the "either Orban or socialism" argument seriously) Well, you should look into how he is changing hungarian institutions to his advantage, suppressing the free press etc... Hungarian is much, much less democratic than it was a few years ago, and Orban certainly is a authoritative leader. "Dictator" is probably too much at the moment.
Saying he's authoritative is completely fair.
Saying he's a dictator is simply untrue. That's what I had issues with.
On January 21 2017 21:52 Euphorbus wrote:
Yes, it is exactly the same! The holocaust and Hitler.
You are only saying what you are saying because you are Hungarian.
Stop trying to xenoxplain me how my country is, and don't discard my lived experiences!
(not gonna comment more about this, I swear)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
