Posted: Tue May 19, 2020 1:42 pmQabea wrote:Ah yes, we start of with an ad hominem, but let's ignore that... Read my post again, I called the Democrats a "center-right" party. With under that context I agree that there are political parties around the would that are farther right than the Democrats. For example, all it takes is a google search to see that all the political parties you just mentioned are all well past the center, if not well past the center-right; so of course they're more right-wing than the Democrats, I'm not comparing the Democrats to them.
Define 'Centre'.
You'll notice that all the parties I mentioned are either the major party in the government or the largest opposition party.
If you arbitrarily define 'Centre' to mean 'Everyone to the right of me', your definition is a worthless masturbation aide. I'm afraid that it'll have to actually be the centre of the political spectrum in a given place. Meaning that it's typically somewhere between the largest parties on the right and left side of a given country's political spectrum. Not somewhere within the left side of that country's political spectrum.
If your definition of 'Centre' puts it somewhere between socialists and marxist-leninists, it is, shockingly enough, not centre. You're just engaging in worthless wordplay.
Then again, the Sandernistas like to do this a lot. I did notice how Warren - with the single most-left voting record in the Senate - turned into a 'Corporate Shill' in recent months.
It's interesting that you omitted center-right political parties like UDI and MoDem in France and the Civic Platform in Poland which are more the types of, center-right, liberal political parties we're comparing the Democrats to.
Because I picked the actual major parties to the right of the centre in the relevant countries. Not minor parties in the left half of those countries' political spectra and then arbitrarily declaring them 'Right'.
Because actually looking past the media description of the Democratic party and reading about what they actually stand for—for Interventionism and Neoliberalism and against the proposals of AOC and Bernie Sanders—makes me ignorant.
Well, yes. Believing that Sanders - who'd stand precisely zero chance of entering a governing coalition in any European country, though this is admittedly partly caused by his inability to compromise, rendering him incapable of entering a coalition - is merely 'Left of Centre' does indeed make you ignorant. Or delusional.
Hm. Actually, now that I think about it, Sanders would have other issues, too. Such as his desire to always change the rules so they benefit him - even if the rules currently in place were specifically set up on his request. But hey, four years later, it's suddenly the old ruleset that'd benefit him more, let's change it again!
I also doubt that pulling a stunt similar to Sanders losing in the 1990 Vermont primaries, followed by running as an independent because hey, Vermont's up there amongst the whitest rural state you can find, Sanders is pro-gun and (back then) tough on crime, and if your opponent's a black woman who argues for decriminalising drugs, it should be easy to beat her in the general, right?
I mean, he was right, it was easy to beat her. But y'know. That the kind of scummy shitheel behaviour that I doubt most European parties - which are much more tightly controlled than American ones - would be particularly forgiving of.
What I'm saying is, Sanders' pattern of behaviour would almost certainly have gotten him kicked out of whichever mainstream political party he was trying to take over.
Much like how his pattern of behaviour got the black vote to give him the middle finger, really.
