Somewhat inspired by Raz's thread (Your ideal politician), but more grounded in reality.
What's the one election you really think your country got wrong? Who, with hindsight, would have been a far better national leader than the person who was elected?
Would America be a better place if President Dole had won in 1996? Would the UK have been better off with Prime Minister Kinnock?
If I may, try and keep it to people who actually ran in the race - you may think, I dunno, Howard Dean should have won the Democratic race in 2004, but the choice America faced was between Bush and Kerrey.
Not electing a Habsburg in one of these 16th century elections. :P
Friedrich Wilhelm IV accepting the emperorship in 1848 from the Frankfurt parliament. That would have set Germany on course for a parliamentarian constitutional monarchy and not the authoritarian Prussian state we got two decades later.
No idea. I mean sure there have been a couple elections where I felt the country got it wrong, 1992 and 2000 stick out, but I don't know if any of those really fill me with angst.
I mean Dewey and Stevenson were great in their other public contributions but I don't know if they really would have been great Presidents.
Mogens Lykketoft in 2001, instead we got Fogh. Perhaps not the beat leader we never had, but we would've not had one of the most destructive.
Cthulhu or a giant meteor might have been better choices than Hitler in 1932 and 1933.
McCain in 2000.
Gordon Brown in 2010, given the mess Cameron has left behind.
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2016, 04:00:48 PM
Gordon Brown in 2010, given the mess Cameron has left behind.
But you already had a Gordon Brown as PM, so he's not really a leader you "never had". You know what kind of leader he was.
Quote from: Zanza on September 14, 2016, 03:56:31 PM
Cthulhu or a giant meteor might have been better choices than Hitler in 1932 and 1933.
:lol:
Okay, you guys win for the worst election results ever...
Not exactly "best leader we never had" - that would go to a talking parrot put in place of Fernando VII - but I always thought about the fun and giggles had we given the crown to Leopold Hohenzollern in 1868, and aligned Spain with Prussia.
A wet rag would have been a better king for Spain instead of Ferdinand VII in the Bourbon restauration after the Napoleonic wars. It was not really an election but we could have done so much better...
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 04:07:22 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2016, 04:00:48 PM
Gordon Brown in 2010, given the mess Cameron has left behind.
But you already had a Gordon Brown as PM, so he's not really a leader you "never had". You know what kind of leader he was.
Well we're in the beginning of a whole mess of stuff, so I'm willing to see just how bad he'd have to become to still be better than Cameron.
edit:BB you're right, so instead I'll go for zombie Screaming Lord Sutch over Dave 'Nice But Dim' Cameron.
Hey are you guys listening the Mike Duncan's Latin American Revolution series? I loved the line that Bolivar was the only one to not support Ferdinand in Venezuela during Ferdinand's captivity in the Napoleonic Wars because he was the only one who had actually met Ferdinand.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2016, 03:58:51 PM
McCain in 2000.
Good one. Talk about an election to disillusion one on the POTUS election process. I have had a very hard time emotionally tolerating these shitshows ever since that one.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 03:55:43 PM
No idea. I mean sure there have been a couple elections where I felt the country got it wrong, 1992 and 2000 stick out, but I don't know if any of those really fill me with angst.
I mean Dewey and Stevenson were great in their other public contributions but I don't know if they really would have been great Presidents.
I dunno - do you
really think that you'd be better off with President Al Gore?
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 03:55:43 PM
No idea. I mean sure there have been a couple elections where I felt the country got it wrong, 1992 and 2000 stick out, but I don't know if any of those really fill me with angst.
I mean Dewey and Stevenson were great in their other public contributions but I don't know if they really would have been great Presidents.
I dunno - do you really think that you'd be better off with President Al Gore?
Yes. But as I said I don't think we missed some great leader there. I was more taken with Lieberman than I was with Gore to be honest. I was disappointed but not nearly as disappointed as I was in 1992. I truly thought we were fucked.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 04:13:58 PM
Hey are you guys listening the Mike Duncan's Latin American Revolution series? I loved the line that Bolivar was the only one to not support Ferdinand in Venezuela during Ferdinand's captivity in the Napoleonic Wars because he was the only one who had actually met Ferdinand.
Still going through the French Revolution. Actually just listened to the one dealing with the Battle of Valmy today. :frog:
Fernando VII was the terriblest Spanish king, but it probably wasn't politically feasible to change dynasty or go with a Republic at the time. There's always the "meh, we should have let the French win" debate.
Goldwater.
Ferdinand could have been bullied into accepting the Constitution of 1812 though.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2016, 04:22:59 PM
Goldwater.
:hug:
Would have been very interesting to see how he'd have dealt with all the social unrest of the late 1960s, but everything I've read about him he seemed like a very honourable man.
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 04:25:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2016, 04:22:59 PM
Goldwater.
:hug:
Would have been very interesting to see how he'd have dealt with all the social unrest of the late 1960s, but everything I've read about him he seemed like a very honourable man.
The anti-Civil Rights stuff makes me think he probably was the wrong man for the times. But hey at least no little girls were nuked :P
Stephen Douglas /ducks
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2016, 04:22:59 PM
Goldwater.
He would have never won because Kennedy had just been offed and the people's sympathy was with the democrats.
The only thing we got was that excellent speech by Ronald Reagan. A time of choosing.
Quote from: Siege on September 14, 2016, 04:28:59 PM
He would have never won because Kennedy had just been offed and the people's sympathy was with the democrats.
You think? Though come to think of it having a President shot has done the party in question some political good election-wise for awhile. Well except for Garfield.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2016, 04:27:40 PM
Stephen Douglas /ducks
His inspirational leadership passing the suicide pact known as the Compromise of 1850 was pretty awesome.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 04:24:13 PM
Ferdinand could have been bullied into accepting the Constitution of 1812 though.
Not really, the liberals had little factual power at the time. Such a pity, Spain's biggest historical missed opportunity.
The second biggest was when a few years later the liberals *did* have enough power to reinstate the 1812 Constitution and we got invaded by France to restore absolutist power. Thanks for that.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2016, 03:58:51 PM
McCain in 2000.
You bring a whole other dimension to the discussion when you include people who ran in the primaries but didn't get the nomination. I'll stick to just the general election results.
It's a tougher question than I originally thought, given the qualifiers put on it. I think the election in my lifetime we most clearly got "wrong" was 1992, but since Bush the Elder had already been President, it doesn't count for purposes of this thread. Oddly, most of the other elections that sprang to my mind have a similar problem--1912, 1888, 1840, 1800 (1840 might not be in the running if Harrison hadn't died, leaving us with Tyler).
Otherwise--hmm. I'm inclined to think that Goldwater would have been a better President that Johnson, but I'm not certain of that. Dewy I think would have been a good President, but I have a hard time seeing him as being better than Truman. McCain? I don't know; I've never been a McCain fan, and except for Obamacare, Obama hasn't been nearly as bad as I feared he would be (granting that that's a big "except"). All things considered, I think I'd go with James Cox. I know next to nothing about him or his policies, but it's hard to see how he'd not have been better than Harding.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f7/ce/1f/f7ce1fb55df13aaef360693e4b569b19.jpg)
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 03:55:43 PM
No idea. I mean sure there have been a couple elections where I felt the country got it wrong, 1992 and 2000 stick out, but I don't know if any of those really fill me with angst.
I mean Dewey and Stevenson were great in their other public contributions but I don't know if they really would have been great Presidents.
I dunno - do you really think that you'd be better off with President Al Gore?
:huh: How can that even be a question? You don't have to be that good to be better than a man who committed the worst geopolitical blunder in the country's history.
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2016, 07:46:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 04:17:18 PM
I dunno - do you really think that you'd be better off with President Al Gore?
:huh: How can that even be a question? You don't have to be that good to be better than a man who committed the worst geopolitical blunder in the country's history.
Yeah...they're always going to buy that storyline.
Al Haig
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 03:49:43 PM
Somewhat inspired by Raz's thread (Your ideal politician), but more grounded in reality.
What's the one election you really think your country got wrong? Who, with hindsight, would have been a far better national leader than the person who was elected?
Harper should have won once more :(
Seriously, one who has never been elected to the office before? hmm. Hard to tell. Most Canadian Prime Ministers were horribly bad for Quebec, but most of the opposition leaders were just as bad. So I don't know.
I think Joe Clark would have been a very fine Prime Minister if he had been in office for longer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2016, 07:24:50 PM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f7/ce/1f/f7ce1fb55df13aaef360693e4b569b19.jpg)
Good call. This is what I was going to say.
Quote from: Caliga on September 14, 2016, 08:54:00 PM
Good call. This is what I was going to say.
He doesn't die, the '68 DNC's not a mess, a reelection in '72, the Democratic Party is not only stabilized, it becomes even more solidified and ensconced than ever.
No Nixon, no Watergate, no Jimmy Carter, no '76 Reagan Revolt or '80 Reagan Revolution. Hell, possibly no disco.
:lol:
I thought that was a picture of Ho Chi Mingh
...sigh.
And it's Minh, not Mingh, Flash Gordon.
A couple of times during this election cycle, I've thought of RFK's speech about Martin Luther King's death, and then about pretty much everything that Donald Trump says, and think "How could we have gone from that to this?" :Embarrass:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2016, 09:23:04 PM
And it's Minh, not Mingh, Flash Gordon.
eh, sounds the same.
Quote from: Caliga on September 14, 2016, 09:28:49 PM
"How could we have gone from that to this?" :Embarrass:
Easy. Because we let it.
Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2016, 08:33:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 03:49:43 PM
Somewhat inspired by Raz's thread (Your ideal politician), but more grounded in reality.
What's the one election you really think your country got wrong? Who, with hindsight, would have been a far better national leader than the person who was elected?
Harper should have won once more :(
Seriously, one who has never been elected to the office before? hmm. Hard to tell. Most Canadian Prime Ministers were horribly bad for Quebec, but most of the opposition leaders were just as bad. So I don't know.
I think Joe Clark would have been a very fine Prime Minister if he had been in office for longer.
Well the couple of names that came to my mind were, of course, Preston Manning :wub: but also Robert Stanfield. Far too red toryish for my liking (he campaigned on wage and price controls in '72 for pete's sake), but he would have saved us from Trudeau Sr.
don't really know Robert Stanfield. Preston Manning kept referring to Quebecers as "seperatist devils" so, no, not for me, sorry. Besides, I would never vote for a PM who is not bilingual to run a bilingual country.
All Dutch kings and prime ministers since 1830 ;)
Quote from: Zanza on September 14, 2016, 03:52:50 PM
Friedrich Wilhelm IV accepting the emperorship in 1848 from the Frankfurt parliament. That would have set Germany on course for a parliamentarian constitutional monarchy and not the authoritarian Prussian state we got two decades later.
Interesting. I would have said Frederick III, father of Wilhlem II. Technically, he was a leader, but his illness and death (he died within 100 days of accession) left him basically ineffective, and there's strong indiciation that he may have attempted to liberalize Germany after the British model.
Quote from: Syt on September 15, 2016, 12:59:39 AM
Quote from: Zanza on September 14, 2016, 03:52:50 PM
Friedrich Wilhelm IV accepting the emperorship in 1848 from the Frankfurt parliament. That would have set Germany on course for a parliamentarian constitutional monarchy and not the authoritarian Prussian state we got two decades later.
Interesting. I would have said Frederick III, father of Wilhlem II. Technically, he was a leader, but his illness and death (he died within 100 days of accession) left him basically ineffective, and there's strong indiciation that he may have attempted to liberalize Germany after the British model.
There is a short story in there Syt. Instead of building a time machine and going back and assassinating Hitler, the time traveller trains as a cancer specialist, embeds himself in German society c.1880 and treats Frederick successfully :cool:
... only to be assassinated by his resentful son who keeps the timeline intact. :tinfoil:
............or the new liberal German Empire leads to even greater chaos and horror for some strange reason or other :hmm:
Denis Healey for me. Or possibly Butler.
If we can only have leaders of the opposition who were never PM, Gaitskell is the only reasonable option. Britain would be a different place had he won in 1955 and Suez has been avoided.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 15, 2016, 03:21:18 AM
............or the new liberal German Empire leads to even greater chaos and horror for some strange reason or other :hmm:
See, that'w why Willie kills Fred - time travelers from an even more distant future explain to him that the outcome will be much worse without him taking over. This will be the final scene twist.
To be honest this one is difficult for countries with a coalition style govt. all the time.
In most cases for us it wouldn't change too much.
Teddy Roosevelt 1912
Quote from: Gups on September 15, 2016, 03:24:01 AM
Denis Healey for me. Or possibly Butler.
If we can only have leaders of the opposition who were never PM, Gaitskell is the only reasonable option. Britain would be a different place had he won in 1955 and Suez has been avoided.
Yes he's a good choice.
Quote from: celedhring on September 14, 2016, 04:37:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2016, 04:24:13 PM
Ferdinand could have been bullied into accepting the Constitution of 1812 though.
Not really, the liberals had little factual power at the time. Such a pity, Spain's biggest historical missed opportunity.
The second biggest was when a few years later the liberals *did* have enough power to reinstate the 1812 Constitution and we got invaded by France to restore absolutist power. Thanks for that.
Yeah, he was eager to go back to the pre-Napoleonic era as if nothing had happened, and there was support in the country for that option. I mean, even some members of the Cádiz Cortes straight out told him to ignore the 1812 constitution.
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 10:26:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2016, 08:33:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 03:49:43 PM
Somewhat inspired by Raz's thread (Your ideal politician), but more grounded in reality.
What's the one election you really think your country got wrong? Who, with hindsight, would have been a far better national leader than the person who was elected?
Harper should have won once more :(
Seriously, one who has never been elected to the office before? hmm. Hard to tell. Most Canadian Prime Ministers were horribly bad for Quebec, but most of the opposition leaders were just as bad. So I don't know.
I think Joe Clark would have been a very fine Prime Minister if he had been in office for longer.
Well the couple of names that came to my mind were, of course, Preston Manning :wub: but also Robert Stanfield. Far too red toryish for my liking (he campaigned on wage and price controls in '72 for pete's sake), but he would have saved us from Trudeau Sr.
If we were talking about Quebec specifically though... René Lévesque or Lucien Bouchard as PM of an independant Quebec. Despite being social-democrats, they had their heads on their shoulders and would have reduced govt spending in time.
For Quebec-province, my vote goes to Mario Dumont, 2008. He would have made a fin PM after a couple of years.
The good thing about being Ukrainian is that there are no what-ifs to answer about the old country. In that particular case, it really is the case that all the leaders and all the potential leaders are total shit.
It's not a straight election, but in the 1830s and 40s Count Szechenyi, a super-wealthy aristocrat managed to build a westernising/industrialising movement around himself. Financing the Science Academy, building the first permanent bridge over the Danube at Budapest (the Lanchid, or "chain bridge, it's still there), supporting the building of railroads, he was indispensable in kickstarting whatever little modernisation the country saw.
In politics he had the agenda of slow and steady progress and gaining strength, slowly winning concessions from the Habsburgs. It was a plan that had the country's interest in mind while not forgetting there is an actual world outside its borders.
It was the second to last chance to modernise Hungary and avoid the collapse and disintegration of the country that happened in 1920.
But a more radical wing of politics appeared, headed by Kossuth, who was a lawyer with a dubious background, and a vile nationalist populist.
The nation flocked behind Kossuth, Szechenyi grew insane in desperation of seeing his 20 years of effort being drowned and ruined in Trump-like yelling and sword-rattling, then committed suicide.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2016, 07:39:14 AM
The good thing about being Ukrainian is that there are no what-ifs to answer about the old country. In that particular case, it really is the case that all the leaders and all the potential leaders are total shit.
This did make it easier for me to leave the old country as well :lol: There is just no person and/or force that could make the place any better in the next 20 years.
Gary Hart. My family would have gotten jobs in Washinton if he had won.
Quote from: Tamas on September 15, 2016, 08:07:30 AM
It's not a straight election, but in the 1830s and 40s Count Szechenyi, a super-wealthy aristocrat managed to build a westernising/industrialising movement around himself. Financing the Science Academy, building the first permanent bridge over the Danube at Budapest (the Lanchid, or "chain bridge, it's still there), supporting the building of railroads, he was indispensable in kickstarting whatever little modernisation the country saw.
In politics he had the agenda of slow and steady progress and gaining strength, slowly winning concessions from the Habsburgs. It was a plan that had the country's interest in mind while not forgetting there is an actual world outside its borders.
It was the second to last chance to modernise Hungary and avoid the collapse and disintegration of the country that happened in 1920.
But a more radical wing of politics appeared, headed by Kossuth, who was a lawyer with a dubious background, and a vile nationalist populist.
The nation flocked behind Kossuth, Szechenyi grew insane in desperation of seeing his 20 years of effort being drowned and ruined in Trump-like yelling and sword-rattling, then committed suicide.
Humanity sucks.
The answer to the Drake equation? Intelligence destroys itself. Evolution drives intelligence, but it also drives selfishness and intolerance, and the combination results in inevitable self immolation, of the hard or soft variety.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2016, 07:39:14 AM
The good thing about being Ukrainian is that there are no what-ifs to answer about the old country. In that particular case, it really is the case that all the leaders and all the potential leaders are total shit.
Should have sided with Poland instead of the Russians.
Quote from: Tamas on September 15, 2016, 08:07:30 AM
It's not a straight election, but in the 1830s and 40s Count Szechenyi, a super-wealthy aristocrat managed to build a westernising/industrialising movement around himself. Financing the Science Academy, building the first permanent bridge over the Danube at Budapest (the Lanchid, or "chain bridge, it's still there), supporting the building of railroads, he was indispensable in kickstarting whatever little modernisation the country saw.
In politics he had the agenda of slow and steady progress and gaining strength, slowly winning concessions from the Habsburgs. It was a plan that had the country's interest in mind while not forgetting there is an actual world outside its borders.
It was the second to last chance to modernise Hungary and avoid the collapse and disintegration of the country that happened in 1920.
But a more radical wing of politics appeared, headed by Kossuth, who was a lawyer with a dubious background, and a vile nationalist populist.
The nation flocked behind Kossuth, Szechenyi grew insane in desperation of seeing his 20 years of effort being drowned and ruined in Trump-like yelling and sword-rattling, then committed suicide.
How refreshing to hear a Hungarian refer to that guy as anything but a heroic hero.
Quote from: viper37 on September 15, 2016, 07:35:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 10:26:59 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 14, 2016, 08:33:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2016, 03:49:43 PM
Somewhat inspired by Raz's thread (Your ideal politician), but more grounded in reality.
What's the one election you really think your country got wrong? Who, with hindsight, would have been a far better national leader than the person who was elected?
Harper should have won once more :(
Seriously, one who has never been elected to the office before? hmm. Hard to tell. Most Canadian Prime Ministers were horribly bad for Quebec, but most of the opposition leaders were just as bad. So I don't know.
I think Joe Clark would have been a very fine Prime Minister if he had been in office for longer.
Well the couple of names that came to my mind were, of course, Preston Manning :wub: but also Robert Stanfield. Far too red toryish for my liking (he campaigned on wage and price controls in '72 for pete's sake), but he would have saved us from Trudeau Sr.
If we were talking about Quebec specifically though... René Lévesque or Lucien Bouchard as PM of an independant Quebec. Despite being social-democrats, they had their heads on their shoulders and would have reduced govt spending in time.
For Quebec-province, my vote goes to Mario Dumont, 2008. He would have made a fin PM after a couple of years.
Their are far better candidate than Dumont in '08.
A Arthur Sauvé victory in 1919, 1923 or 1927 would have saved Quebec of 40 years of noirceur.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2016, 08:09:59 AM
Gary Hart. My family would have gotten jobs in Washinton if he had won.
You could be posting from a house in Georgetown or Bethesda. Pity.
In Canada the greatest leaders we never had undoubtedly are in the NDP since the capable leaders in the other two parties did win elections.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 09:00:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2016, 08:09:59 AM
Gary Hart. My family would have gotten jobs in Washinton if he had won.
You could be posting from a house basement in Georgetown or Bethesda. Pity.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2016, 07:39:14 AM
The good thing about being Ukrainian is that there are no what-ifs to answer about the old country. In that particular case, it really is the case that all the leaders and all the potential leaders are total shit.
I dunno about that. I seem to recall that right when independence was declared that if someone other than communist apparatchik Leonid Kravchuk was elected maybe Ukraine could have gone along a more western-oriented path...
(more googling)
Here we go. 1991 election Kravchuk ran against Viacheslav Chornovil, a dissident during communist times. Looking at his wiki he seems like a decent bloke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacheslav_Chornovil
Quote from: Gups on September 15, 2016, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 09:00:10 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2016, 08:09:59 AM
Gary Hart. My family would have gotten jobs in Washinton if he had won.
You could be posting from a house basement in Georgetown or Bethesda. Pity.
I'm not in a basement now. :)
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 08:28:05 AM
How refreshing to hear a Hungarian refer to that guy as anything but a heroic hero.
I consider him one of the biggest villains of our history. That he is one of our most cherished national heroes is just shameful. He recklessly pushed the country into war and ethnic strife, and when against all odds his gamble paid off and we chased the Austrian armies from our country, instead of succumbing to political realities and making a favourable deal with the Habsburgs, he doubled down and grabbed power for himself, booting the Habsburgs out. Of course, the Russians could not stomach that and roflstomped us.
Then Kossuth did not take the blame (unlike most of the leadership who did not flee, and a lot of them ended up executed), but started to push it on General Gorgei, who were leading the armies at the time, and seeing the realities of standing up against both Austria and Russia in a two front war decided to surrender after already being on the run with nothing but remnants of the armed forces (to Russia, on principle, BTW).
Everyone jumped on the version of blaming him for the defeat which in turn ruined his (quite long) life, while Kossuth fled to the Ottomans and kept stirring up trouble back home with his grand ideas.
He was the epitome of what is wrong with opportunistic political adventurers embracing demagog nationalism.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 08:26:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2016, 07:39:14 AM
The good thing about being Ukrainian is that there are no what-ifs to answer about the old country. In that particular case, it really is the case that all the leaders and all the potential leaders are total shit.
Should have sided with Poland instead of the Russians.
They would've suffered the same fate, if not worse.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 15, 2016, 11:16:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2016, 08:26:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2016, 07:39:14 AM
The good thing about being Ukrainian is that there are no what-ifs to answer about the old country. In that particular case, it really is the case that all the leaders and all the potential leaders are total shit.
Should have sided with Poland instead of the Russians.
They would've suffered the same fate, if not worse.
What an epically shitty choice of options. Poles or Russians!
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 15, 2016, 09:18:02 AM
In Canada the greatest leaders we never had undoubtedly are in the NDP since the capable leaders in the other two parties did win elections.
I wouldn't mind having seen a Jack Layton government, but I'm okay with what we got - Harper and Trudeau.
Quote from: Barrister on September 15, 2016, 09:58:54 AM
Here we go. 1991 election Kravchuk ran against Viacheslav Chornovil, a dissident during communist times. Looking at his wiki he seems like a decent bloke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacheslav_Chornovil
I remember him well, he was from my city. From what I recall, which may well be colored in bias I wasn't able to comprehend due to age, no, he wasn't. Ukrainian ultra-nationalists were a different kind of shit, but still very shit.
Roy Jenkins :wub: