Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
-
Who said that? They’re suggesting that, since you’re putting restrictions, you might as well add other restrictions that also make sense.
Yeah but clearly the original comment is ironic since it addresses CDU as corrupt. You know, one of the two main parties that would be main drivers behind the suggested extremists banning?
-
Far-Right politicians in Germany could be banned from running for office under plans by the incoming government, echoing a decision in France to block Marine Le Pen from a presidential bid.
genocide supporting germanys already facist enough, I wouldnt trust them bringing laws of supression.
-
Far-Right politicians in Germany could be banned from running for office under plans by the incoming government, echoing a decision in France to block Marine Le Pen from a presidential bid.
They know too well what happens when you let these fuckers get power.
-
If the thing that user asked to happen doesn't happen then the thing won't happen?
Do you smell burnt toast?
If the thing that user asked to happen doesn’t happen then the thing won’t happen?
My understanding was that they asked that politicians with bribery convictions are blocked from running in elections (aka the topic of this thread).
Which can not happen if the prerequisite bribery convictions - which is something different from being blocked from the elections - have not been met.
-
Wake us up when it's "have".
They're not gonna
-
If the thing that user asked to happen doesn’t happen then the thing won’t happen?
My understanding was that they asked that politicians with bribery convictions are blocked from running in elections (aka the topic of this thread).
Which can not happen if the prerequisite bribery convictions - which is something different from being blocked from the elections - have not been met.
I can see what your line of thought was now, ty for elaborating
-
Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a "far-right" party to rule them. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration... whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of an entire country or let them freely choose what they want? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours
This is a paradox well described by Popper. The gist is: You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
-
Then they'll ban far left politicians from running.
Then they'll ban anyone they don't like.
And eventually, they'll ban everyone who isn't them.
Right wing lunatics are repulsive in almost every sense, but this isn't the way you beat them. When you put the machinery in place to do something like this, it will inevitably be abused in the opposite direction in future.
It's pretty hypocritical. Banning people from running in elections is about as far right as you can get.
The left-right divide is not a straight line, it's a full circle.
-
The big issue with any form of attempted suppression will not suddenly sway their voters. It would be much smarter to not give people a reason to fall for populists.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
It's like banning marijuana and then expecting people to just not do it.
-
OK Adolf.
Free speech is only allowed if you agree with it, huh?
-
Yes. Would you allow a company to sell actual poison that is marketed as a health food? What if a study showed 50.1% of all people believed it was not actually poisonous because of a successful marketing campaign by the company? What if innocent babies and children were ingesting this poison because their parents believed it was safe?
If you agree with banning a child killing poison but not with banning a far right party, please explain how it's fundamentally any different.
I would allow that company to sell poison.
But I would not allow them to market it as health food.
If a party campaigns on far right ideals, and get elected, then fair enough, that's democracy. Sometimes you have to admit that your views are not wanted.
However, if a far right party campaigns on truth and love and free kittens for everyone, then instead is shown to be liars and haters and give out free guns, then I would have an issue.
-
This is a paradox well described by Popper. The gist is: You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
I never considered it all that much of a paradox. If anything, it's a linguistic contradiction. Isn't it a question of whether we should tolerate someone in/directly causing/wishing harm onto others. It also doesn't matter whether they understand it themselves.
There is a lot of aspects that are considered "political", that is arguably just "harm onto A that benefits B". I think it is right to call it out. Universal health care, education, affordable housing, etc. Take of the capitalistic monocle, and certain "rights" and "wrongs" are painfully obvious.
-
It's like banning marijuana and then expecting people to just not do it.
While restricting other pain medication.
-
Why would it suppress left politicians? It's not like any of them have multiple extremism convictions, that's usually rightwing politicians.
Being against genocide in Gaza is "extremist" in Germany.
-
Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a "far-right" party to rule them. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration... whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of an entire country or let them freely choose what they want? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours
Protecting minorities from the terror of the majority and protecting democracy for future generations that cannot vote yet are essential parts of democracy.
To answer your question:
Deny the will of the majority of the people
yes, because what you describe is not democracy, it's mob rule
-
The big issue with any form of attempted suppression will not suddenly sway their voters. It would be much smarter to not give people a reason to fall for populists.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
Nope, if the AfD gets banned, the entire structure and funding crumbles. It will take decades to build up this kind of Nazi momentum.
-
Wake us up when it's "have".
-
Protecting minorities from the terror of the majority and protecting democracy for future generations that cannot vote yet are essential parts of democracy.
To answer your question:
Deny the will of the majority of the people
yes, because what you describe is not democracy, it's mob rule
yes, because what you describe is not democracy, it’s mob rule
First part i agree with you but this one makes no sense to me, you are telling me that its only democracy when people align with your views, if they dont think the way you do "is not democracy". I dont agree with this one tbh.
-
This is a paradox well described by Popper. The gist is: You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
Yep, The paradox of Tolerance. Its way more deep that we think it is
-
Nope, if the AfD gets banned, the entire structure and funding crumbles. It will take decades to build up this kind of Nazi momentum.
First of all, no, that's wrong. The AfD got to where they are in 12 years, and that was from 0 - do you really think it would take them another 10 years to get to the point where they are now?
Second of all, it STILL would not convince the people that the AfD is wrong and they would just fall for the next right-wing populist party. So even if it would work, it would only be a temporary solution to a major issue.
