AfD is the most popular party in Germany for the first time, with a record 26%
-
So AfD took off because Germans are largely racist, great look
If you ask the AfD-Fanboys, most are probably going to say that they are not racist, that there are just too many refugees in the country and the other parties aren't doing anything about it. The AfD, meanwhile, is blaming all og the problems on the "left parties" and illegal immigrants.
But yes, in my opinion, if you vote for the AfD, you are racist to a degree at least. -
The German media landscape got liberalised in the 1980s, too, with private TV being legalised by a constitutional court verdict in 1981 and the first private TV station coming online in 1984. Private TV was from the start groomed by "conservative" politicians as a tool to further their agenda.
These days, the TV programme is mostly driven by market share, even the public broadcasters have jumped that bandwagon, which over time has lead to an overall decline in quality, as they are trying to emulate the private channels.
I wonder if there's a money trail that can be traced back to a single source for both the German and US (and probably others as well) media outlets to corporatize/liberalize at around the same time.
The laws here directly reflect the wishes of corporations, including the relealing of the Fairness Doctrine, and there is a money trail showing which politicians took money from who for their political campaigns.
The Heritage Foundation also played a big role in influencing policy during the Reagan administration. These are the same people who wrote Project 2025.
-
Shit, in the US a $1000 deductible is what you get with pretty good insurance. My employer has a few plans and only one has a deductible below $1000.
Not to say that's good. Just pointing out that the US has succumbed to capitalism.
That isn't pretty good insurance.
It's what most employees will settle for.
-
Strongest Power doesnt mean ruling power here.
And they will not get into power unless the Union partys want to betrail all their voters even more than they have always been doing. Which will trigger a full on uprising.And even if they are in power the states can block almost everything they do. Germanys constitutional court also has lots of say and can stop things and isnt appointed by the partys unlike in the US
I hope you're right but like I said, only time will tell. In 2015 I thought US democracy was enough to hold Donald Trump in check also, but history proved me wrong there. My state is very blue and I think we can effectively resist a lot (but not all) of what he's doing, but that doesn't help other states that want his destruction.
Germanys constitutional court [...] isnt appointed by the partys unlike in the US
That is new information to me, and quite interesting. How do your judges come into power?
-
But it isn't false. They are literal nazis and say literal nazi things.
Several offices for the protection of the constitution of the German Länder (they are a kind of anti-extremist intelligence services, in case you don't know) have found them to be "assuredly right-wing-extremists, which is the worst possible classification the law recognises.
Again. Literal, actual, nazis.
Yes. That's why you should quote what they literally say. It's not a quote if you write what you think they say.
-
As a crimson lining, I hope the United State's decay will teach Germany to destroy the AfD and all other right wingers. They are a poison to civilization.
Hopefully yes.
But not very likely as the cdU/csU are getting more and more open to cooperate with the afd.
I'm afraid we are in the last legaslative term without an afd-ridden coalition. -
I hope you're right but like I said, only time will tell. In 2015 I thought US democracy was enough to hold Donald Trump in check also, but history proved me wrong there. My state is very blue and I think we can effectively resist a lot (but not all) of what he's doing, but that doesn't help other states that want his destruction.
Germanys constitutional court [...] isnt appointed by the partys unlike in the US
That is new information to me, and quite interesting. How do your judges come into power?
Used to be partially threw parliament, partially threw the state council and the current judges also have a say in it. For anew judge it needs 2/3 majority. They are there only for 12 years and cant be reelected. Cant be above 68 neither younger than 40. Plus you have to have to be a judge which is very hard and strictly monitored and served as a highest judge. But last year they changed the voting process with heavy protest of the AfD. We have 2 supremecourt councils each made up of 8 judges. Plus the president also has a say. Its very complicated. But as you see the AfD would have to rule all of germany and every german state AND have enought judges in their ranks for over 10 years to yield hitler power levels.
Doesnt mean they cant do heavy damage already once in charge. But they wont be able to change voting laws or the distribution of power for example.
Germanys federalism is blessing and a big safe guard, but also that federalism brings huge headach and makes change really really slow.
-
Targetting dual citizenship holders first who are deemed criminals. If I had wild guess, criminals means supermarket thieves as much as climate protesters. But who knows what the end result may look like.
Fun side note: The German constitution does not allow the state to revoke citizenships unilaterally. The reason for that is that it was one the things that the historical Nazis used to legal-wash removing parts of the population. You know, just like the German constitution includes the right to asylum, specifically because so many countries refused to take in refugees from Germany in the Nazi era.
Ok so speculation on your part there about how citizenship would be revoked. Cool story.
Fun side note: if the constitution does not allow it then they can’t and won’t do it. As for the asylum one, they’re not suggesting banning asylum.
-
So, for one, no it's obviously not just about renewables. It's about enabling environmental abuse of whatever sort.
And nuclear is not cheap. The only reason why people think that is that usually the cost of building plants as well as the cost of insurance is subsidized somehow, and the cost of final storage for 100k+ years is a complete unknown. It doesn't even make sense to even think about final storage in economic terms, because who knows what people are capable of in 100k years. But when a nuclear plant is built, and has been humming along for a couple years, people start to think it's cheap because they fail to see either end of the process. Cheap nuclear is a mirage.
Solar and wind actually are cheap, can be rolled out decentrally, don't require consumables, but you have to deal with their intermittency.
Also, you have delved again into yet more topics. Which certainly is a fun distraction.
I asked you to clarify what you meant, and assumed it was about renewables. It wasn’t obvious what you were talking about, hence why I asked
Nuclear is cheap compared to literal endless spending on ever increasing numbers of batteries and solar panels and wind turbine blades and transmission lines for eternity. Take your number of 100k years - batteries need to be replaced every 10 years or so due to falling capacity and/or just dropping dead/malfunction. How solar panels are supposed to last 25-30, but are easily damaged by things like hail. Batteries and solar panels require mining of non-renewable, toxic, and non recyclable materials to create. This means enormous, ever increasing amounts of toxic landfill combined with enormous ever increasing mining.
Solar and wind are cheap to roll out (if you don’t include the transmission costs, like the Australian government refuse to), but they’re incredibly inefficient (less than 30% efficient at their absolute best) and unreliable (solar doesn’t work for a minimum of 8 hours a day, often 24 hours a day). They require consumables in a different way - every time they need replacement. Nuclear works at 100% capacity 24/7.
If you didn’t mean renewables then cool, let’s leave that one there. What did you mean then? Remember, I asked you what you meant since you were vague and non specific.
-
So, for one, no it's obviously not just about renewables. It's about enabling environmental abuse of whatever sort.
And nuclear is not cheap. The only reason why people think that is that usually the cost of building plants as well as the cost of insurance is subsidized somehow, and the cost of final storage for 100k+ years is a complete unknown. It doesn't even make sense to even think about final storage in economic terms, because who knows what people are capable of in 100k years. But when a nuclear plant is built, and has been humming along for a couple years, people start to think it's cheap because they fail to see either end of the process. Cheap nuclear is a mirage.
Solar and wind actually are cheap, can be rolled out decentrally, don't require consumables, but you have to deal with their intermittency.
Also, you have delved again into yet more topics. Which certainly is a fun distraction.
Are you going to just keep removing all of my comments that you disagree with and say “bad faith”? Funny that you removed ones where I asked someone if they just want a dictatorship of their preferred party and they literally said “yes” as “bad faith” lol
-
Ok so speculation on your part there about how citizenship would be revoked. Cool story.
Fun side note: if the constitution does not allow it then they can’t and won’t do it. As for the asylum one, they’re not suggesting banning asylum.
So you're just saying that I lie because of ... what? I made an informed guess on who would ultimately likely be affected, the rest of it is part of discussions [de]. And as gonservatives like to copy fascists these days, adding some form of it to the coalition treaty [de] was in fact discussed (but luckily not included in the final treaty).
To change the constitution, you only need a 2/3 majority in parliament and 2/3 in the council of states. But that's not even the point — the point is that there are political forces who want to do away with provisions in the constitution that were specifically created because of Germany's past.
-
Are you going to just keep removing all of my comments that you disagree with and say “bad faith”? Funny that you removed ones where I asked someone if they just want a dictatorship of their preferred party and they literally said “yes” as “bad faith” lol
Yes, I removed many of your comments from other threads. In case you're wondering, yes, I did notice you're not arguing in good faith in this thread either.
-
Yes, I removed many of your comments from other threads. In case you're wondering, yes, I did notice you're not arguing in good faith in this thread either.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I noticed that you’re just saying I’m arguing in bad faith because you disagree with me and want to use it as a reason to delete my comments.
I’m not arguing in bad faith.
-
So you're just saying that I lie because of ... what? I made an informed guess on who would ultimately likely be affected, the rest of it is part of discussions [de]. And as gonservatives like to copy fascists these days, adding some form of it to the coalition treaty [de] was in fact discussed (but luckily not included in the final treaty).
To change the constitution, you only need a 2/3 majority in parliament and 2/3 in the council of states. But that's not even the point — the point is that there are political forces who want to do away with provisions in the constitution that were specifically created because of Germany's past.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I didn’t say you lied, I said you are speculating - which you are.
What you’re now talking about is legally changing the constitution. That is allowed to happen. That’s democracy. If a party gets elected and given that much power via numbers then what reason do you have to say they shouldn’t be allowed to make their democratically elected platform into law?
Look, if a country overwhelmingly want to go full nazi, then democratically that is what should happen. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be consequences for them doing so - like sanctions, tariffs, ending of trade deals, or even a world war - but if it is what the majority of the people want……that is how democracy works. You can’t say you want democracy but then say that the majority of people shouldn’t be allowed to have a say. That in itself is very authoritarian, very dictatorship. “We know better than the majority of people and we will not listen to them and we will dictate what will happen”.
I’d love to keep discussing this as it’s interesting, no one is hurling insults, no one is breaking rules, but this is no doubt going to get removed for “bad faith”.
-
I noticed that you’re just saying I’m arguing in bad faith because you disagree with me and want to use it as a reason to delete my comments.
I’m not arguing in bad faith.
So when you're trying to force me into ever smaller sub-discussions just to not have to give an answer, ignore any bit of information you can't use in a retort, set up the strawman about "uncontrolled migration", added the completely misguided landlord metaphor, or the misinfo about mining and recycling needed for renewables infrastructure – that was all in good faith?
We may have different definitions of "good", I suppose.
-
So when you're trying to force me into ever smaller sub-discussions just to not have to give an answer, ignore any bit of information you can't use in a retort, set up the strawman about "uncontrolled migration", added the completely misguided landlord metaphor, or the misinfo about mining and recycling needed for renewables infrastructure – that was all in good faith?
We may have different definitions of "good", I suppose.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Where have I not given an answer?
“Completely misguided landlord metaphor”? I’m sorry, do you still not see the direct relevance of that? I very clearly and very slowly explained it to you. Please, explain to me why it is not relevant and is “bad faith”?
“Misinformation about mining and recycling needed for renewables”
What misinformation? You can’t just claim misinformation without ever even responding lol. What is “misinformation” about what I said? Do you think that the materials for solar panels and batteries grow on trees? Where do you think lithium comes from? Aluminium? Where do you think solar panels go when the cost to recycle them is literally higher than the cost to make a new one?
You can’t just go “misinformation!!!” and delete all my comments without even so much as showing or telling why something is supposedly misinformation lol. I mean you can because you are, but that’s weak AF and an abuse of your mod powers.
“Bad faith” doesn’t just mean “things I disagree with”.
-
I didn’t say you lied, I said you are speculating - which you are.
What you’re now talking about is legally changing the constitution. That is allowed to happen. That’s democracy. If a party gets elected and given that much power via numbers then what reason do you have to say they shouldn’t be allowed to make their democratically elected platform into law?
Look, if a country overwhelmingly want to go full nazi, then democratically that is what should happen. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be consequences for them doing so - like sanctions, tariffs, ending of trade deals, or even a world war - but if it is what the majority of the people want……that is how democracy works. You can’t say you want democracy but then say that the majority of people shouldn’t be allowed to have a say. That in itself is very authoritarian, very dictatorship. “We know better than the majority of people and we will not listen to them and we will dictate what will happen”.
I’d love to keep discussing this as it’s interesting, no one is hurling insults, no one is breaking rules, but this is no doubt going to get removed for “bad faith”.
It appears you absolutely don't understand modern democratic societies or what they're good for, i.e. giving every one of their members a livable, just, free, safe life. That's why e.g., there are equal rights in modern democracies, including for minorities.
You're somehow equivocating "democracy" with a "dictatorship of the majority". That is, frankly, incredibly uneducated at best.
You even advocate for the option that modern societies should simply be allowed to regress into slaveholder societies. Why? How is this congruent with allowing everyone decent quality of life? And if 75% of the populace decided that you have to become a slave, would you find this just? Would you go along with it?
the size of which has never been seen before.
Man, you seem scarily enthusiastic at the prospect. But no, fascism doesn't win landslides. In a deeply polarized society with an FPTP system, Trump won just 53%. In the richer party landscape of Germany, AfD is below 30%. The way fascism wins is not with landslides but through the undermining of democratic society.
-
It appears you absolutely don't understand modern democratic societies or what they're good for, i.e. giving every one of their members a livable, just, free, safe life. That's why e.g., there are equal rights in modern democracies, including for minorities.
You're somehow equivocating "democracy" with a "dictatorship of the majority". That is, frankly, incredibly uneducated at best.
You even advocate for the option that modern societies should simply be allowed to regress into slaveholder societies. Why? How is this congruent with allowing everyone decent quality of life? And if 75% of the populace decided that you have to become a slave, would you find this just? Would you go along with it?
the size of which has never been seen before.
Man, you seem scarily enthusiastic at the prospect. But no, fascism doesn't win landslides. In a deeply polarized society with an FPTP system, Trump won just 53%. In the richer party landscape of Germany, AfD is below 30%. The way fascism wins is not with landslides but through the undermining of democratic society.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You’re somehow equivocating “democracy” with a “dictatorship of the majority”
I’m doing no such thing. I’m saying democracy is what it actually is - the power of the people to exercise political control. Like this is literally the definition of democracy. Democracy is a form of government where the power is given to the people to elect a government.
Your view of a “democratic society” is not based on actual definitions. You’re talking more about “society” and societal norms. ie slavery is bad, murder is bad, etc. That’s not what is being discussed.
You even advocate for the option that modern societies should simply be allowed to regress into slaveholder societies
I’m advocating for democracy. What about this is hard to understand? Not all democracy gives the result that you want.
If 75% of the populace decided that you have to become a slave, would you find this just?
It’s irrelevant if I’d find it “just”. I would agree that it was democratically chosen and is the will of the people. Do you disagree with that? If 75% of the population agree on something, do you think that the 25% should get to overrule it?
Man, you seem scarily enthusiastic at the prospect
Ok now there are 2 possibilities here:
- You legitimately don’t understand how examples work, how points are made, how conversations and debates work
- You’re arguing in bad faith.
There is no way you could come up with that line outside of those 2 possibilities. I displayed no enthusiasm whatsoever. I was using an example to make a point, an example at the extreme end to drive the point home. You somehow mistook this as some sort of orgasmic fever dream, or you’re arguing in bad faith.
My point is that what you think is “fascism” absolutely could win in a landslide. It could happen - that’s democracy. Democracy doesn’t have to be undermined - democracy just has to be respected. Trump just won 53%….what if JD Vance wins 63% next time? 73% the time after? What if the AfD wins 60% next time? That’s democracy, and you can’t argue with that.
Arguing that they should be banned because you don’t agree with their policies is literally saying you don’t want democracy. You’re saying that government should no longer be formed democratically.
Let me turn that question around to you - if 75% of the German population agreed with the AfD policies and voted for them at the next election, no “election interference”, no fraud whatsoever, just legitimately 75% of all voters voted for them………what would you say should happen? Would you agree that they won the democratic election and should form government? Would you agree that the democratic process was followed?
-
I wonder if there's a money trail that can be traced back to a single source for both the German and US (and probably others as well) media outlets to corporatize/liberalize at around the same time.
The laws here directly reflect the wishes of corporations, including the relealing of the Fairness Doctrine, and there is a money trail showing which politicians took money from who for their political campaigns.
The Heritage Foundation also played a big role in influencing policy during the Reagan administration. These are the same people who wrote Project 2025.
In Germany, there is a big political movemet that transcends pretty much all party boundaries, which calls itself "transatlanticists" its core values are subservience to the USA, or some form of transatlantic corruption.
I wouldn't be surprised about all kinds of money trails. Our future head of government "worked" for BlackRock, an US investment corporation, for the most part of his career. And there are many more like him. As I already said, most forms of political corruption are legal in Germany.
