AfD is the most popular party in Germany for the first time, with a record 26%
-
nd their inability to fix the damage caused by the financial crisis of 2008
That's absolutely not it. Germany went through the crisis of 2008 like a breeze. In 2015 during the refugee crisis, Merkel decided to open our borders to all of the refugees. Before that, the AfD had below 10% of the voters on their side. But a huge chunk of the population did not agree to Merkel's refugee policies. That's when the AfD took off. And now we can't get rif of them
So AfD took off because Germans are largely racist, great look
-
*In an opinion poll
I mean lets not confuse an opinion poll with the truth. These things regularly get things a couple points off. In fact thatâs the norm.
They were quite accurate the last few elections though... Maybe 1% off, but that's it.
-
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.
Shit, in the US a $1000 deductible is what you get with pretty good insurance
US is not my standard when it comes to healthcare.
Everyone in germany pays 14% of his income as health insurance, you do not have a choice (except for a few people), there is a MASSIVE amount of money in the system. It's just wasted left and right, so introducing a deductible is just the dumbest thing ever.
-
Ok so you basically want unregulated immigration and think that any attempts to stop it is nazi-adjacent, or just straight up nazi behaviour.
people arenât âillegalâ
Way to argue in bad faith. People can be âillegal immigrantsâ which is what is being discussed. Illegal immigrants are immigrants that entered the country illegally. They broke the law. No one is saying a person is illegal. Thats the very definition of a bad faith argument, intentionally cherry picking words out of context and acting like they mean something that they donât so you can attack them and/or the poster.
Making a process for asylum seekers to get approval to enter the country before entering the country isnât âremoving rights of asylum seekers for due processâ in any way. Itâs giving them due process to enter the country rather than letting them in and then having to go through endless processes to remove them if theyâre not granted asylum. It makes sense. Itâs the smart thing to do. It fixes many issues with the current system. What rights do you think it takes away?
deporting father of 3 with no priors
You mean the MS-13 gang member who has lived in the country illegally for 13 years without any attempt to become a legal citizen, who had twice been ordered to be deported back to his home country, where he now is? That âMaryland fatherâ?
Like I said, your position is that all immigration should be legal. Thats a position alright, but itâs a very unpopular one that only the furthest of the far left advocate for. Itâs no wonder why you claim that a party who want to control immigration are Nazis and should be banned from becoming too popular.
Cool story
So you didnât get the point that was being made, or you have no way to refute it?
Ok so you basically want unregulated immigration and think that any attempts to stop it is nazi-adjacent, or just straight up nazi behaviour.
Nice strawman! Where did you buy it? I usually get mine at Aldi's, but I've recently wondered whether I should switch up.
On a more serious note: Of course, immigration should be controlled. It should not be cut off though.
Way to argue in bad faith. People can be âillegal immigrantsâ which is what is being discussed.
Absolutely in good faith. There's a reason why this specific phrase was coined: It's a derogatory term to criminalize people who are usually fleeing their home countries. And often enough, it's even shortened to "illegals", making the intended dehumanization even more blatant.
Making a process for asylum seekers to get approval to enter the country before entering the country isnât âremoving rights of asylum seekers for due processâ in any way.
Now that's a bad-faith argument! Again, that process usually centers around "welcome centers" or whatever the euphemism du jour is, in other words: offshored internment camps. I suspect there may be reasons why Italy's Albanian camp project and the UK's Rwandan camp project were each struck down by courts multiple times. Notably, cost projection for both of these were rather interesting too.
You mean the MS-13 gang member who has lived in the country illegally for 13 years without any attempt to become a legal citizen, who had twice been ordered to be deported back to his home country, where he now is?
Don't know the specific case; is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoo though?
In any case, I was referring the sort of average profile of a person that ends up in getting deported. Statistically, the chances of the deported being violent criminals is getting much lower, the higher the number of deportations. And that's pretty logical: most people are not actually criminal, and if you're just deporting to juice the stats, you'll obviously deport those people you can arrest easily. Deportations are shit tool if your goal is justice, and they are extremely easy to abuse.
Like I said, your position is that all immigration should be legal.
Lol. "Like I said, your position is", even to you that wording should be cue.
Cool story
So you didnât get the point that was being made, or you have no way to refute it?
Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic.
Itâs no wonder why you claim that a party who want to control immigration are Nazis and should be banned from becoming too popular.
Shall we recap this discussion between the two of us?
- You called people who are in favor of disbanding the Afd party "nazis" and "fascists".
- I named a number of policy positions held by this party and its representatives that are in fact putting them fairly close to historic Nazism.
- I asked whether these sorts of positions were positions that could reasonably be called democratic.
- You claimed that your comment was being distorted by my listing of their policy. (Also that you were being called a nazi. Actually, where?)
- When we were done with that, you picked one of the policy and tried to disect it.
- We've been conversing about the finer legal details of pointlessly hurting and, in effect, often killing, people since.
- Now you feel you've reduced ad absurdo enough and built yourself a few strawmen.
- You claim that I am a nazi (capital N?).
I'd still love to know, what you think of the positions that I wrote up above. Just take them at face value Are those positions of a normal democratic party that should remain allowed?
I am copying what I wrote above again:
the people who want everyone with the wrong kind of mustache to be deported, who want citizenships revoked, who want to "remove the outmoded political party system", who are already obstructing the judicial system in Thuringia, who want to defund public media because it's "too woke", who want to gut universities because they are "too woke", who want to fuck up the environment because - guess what - also "woke", and who want to overthrow the constitutional order
-
Ok so you basically want unregulated immigration and think that any attempts to stop it is nazi-adjacent, or just straight up nazi behaviour.
Nice strawman! Where did you buy it? I usually get mine at Aldi's, but I've recently wondered whether I should switch up.
On a more serious note: Of course, immigration should be controlled. It should not be cut off though.
Way to argue in bad faith. People can be âillegal immigrantsâ which is what is being discussed.
Absolutely in good faith. There's a reason why this specific phrase was coined: It's a derogatory term to criminalize people who are usually fleeing their home countries. And often enough, it's even shortened to "illegals", making the intended dehumanization even more blatant.
Making a process for asylum seekers to get approval to enter the country before entering the country isnât âremoving rights of asylum seekers for due processâ in any way.
Now that's a bad-faith argument! Again, that process usually centers around "welcome centers" or whatever the euphemism du jour is, in other words: offshored internment camps. I suspect there may be reasons why Italy's Albanian camp project and the UK's Rwandan camp project were each struck down by courts multiple times. Notably, cost projection for both of these were rather interesting too.
You mean the MS-13 gang member who has lived in the country illegally for 13 years without any attempt to become a legal citizen, who had twice been ordered to be deported back to his home country, where he now is?
Don't know the specific case; is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoo though?
In any case, I was referring the sort of average profile of a person that ends up in getting deported. Statistically, the chances of the deported being violent criminals is getting much lower, the higher the number of deportations. And that's pretty logical: most people are not actually criminal, and if you're just deporting to juice the stats, you'll obviously deport those people you can arrest easily. Deportations are shit tool if your goal is justice, and they are extremely easy to abuse.
Like I said, your position is that all immigration should be legal.
Lol. "Like I said, your position is", even to you that wording should be cue.
Cool story
So you didnât get the point that was being made, or you have no way to refute it?
Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic.
Itâs no wonder why you claim that a party who want to control immigration are Nazis and should be banned from becoming too popular.
Shall we recap this discussion between the two of us?
- You called people who are in favor of disbanding the Afd party "nazis" and "fascists".
- I named a number of policy positions held by this party and its representatives that are in fact putting them fairly close to historic Nazism.
- I asked whether these sorts of positions were positions that could reasonably be called democratic.
- You claimed that your comment was being distorted by my listing of their policy. (Also that you were being called a nazi. Actually, where?)
- When we were done with that, you picked one of the policy and tried to disect it.
- We've been conversing about the finer legal details of pointlessly hurting and, in effect, often killing, people since.
- Now you feel you've reduced ad absurdo enough and built yourself a few strawmen.
- You claim that I am a nazi (capital N?).
I'd still love to know, what you think of the positions that I wrote up above. Just take them at face value Are those positions of a normal democratic party that should remain allowed?
I am copying what I wrote above again:
the people who want everyone with the wrong kind of mustache to be deported, who want citizenships revoked, who want to "remove the outmoded political party system", who are already obstructing the judicial system in Thuringia, who want to defund public media because it's "too woke", who want to gut universities because they are "too woke", who want to fuck up the environment because - guess what - also "woke", and who want to overthrow the constitutional order
Immigration can and should be cut off at times. Here in Australia we have a massive housing crisis and cost of living crisis. We currently have all time high levels of immigration at a time when we have a housing crisis with homelessness skyrocketing. We literally cannot house the people we have, and most of the population canât afford to buy a house because the demand far outstrips the supply which has caused house pricing to explode.
The absolute best thing we could do at the moment is to cut immigration until we can get the housing crisis under control. What good does importing another million people a year do when we have nowhere to put them?
âIllegal immigrantsâ is not âderogatoryâ, it is a factual description. They broke the law to enter the country. They are in the country illegally. They are an immigrant. Illegal immigrant. This is how language works.
Bad faith? Having people apply for asylum before entering a country is a bad faith argument? Think about what is being proposed. Someone wants to get asylum in Germany. Before entering Germany they apply for asylum. They could do that from their home in the country theyâre wanting asylum from. They could do it from any other country. The AfD is just saying âdonât enter our country illegally and then ask if you can come in - ask firstâ, which is fair because once theyâre in the country there are people who will say they should not be allowed to be deported - like you. Youâre making up the existence of these âoffshore internment campsâ in this situation.
Is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoos
No, itâs the one where a bunch of room temperature IQ people thought that the annotations describing what each of the tattoos stood for were being presented as tattoos.
The US government wants to deport people who are in the country illegally. Thatâs the âprofileâ. Not a single citizen has been deported so far. Deportations are a great tool for deporting illegal immigrants. This isnât really debatable.
Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic
Ok so you just didnât get the point. Iâll explain it again:
Someone entering my house without being invited in is illegal entry. I offer a way for people to enter my house legally, a rental application. When someone applies to rent my house, I donât let them move in while I review their application, because then if I chose not to accept their application theyâre already in my house and I have to jump through all sorts of legal issues to get them out. Out of a place that they should not be. Instead what I do is review their application while they live in their current house, and if successful I let them move in.
Does that help?
-
Immigration can and should be cut off at times. Here in Australia we have a massive housing crisis and cost of living crisis. We currently have all time high levels of immigration at a time when we have a housing crisis with homelessness skyrocketing. We literally cannot house the people we have, and most of the population canât afford to buy a house because the demand far outstrips the supply which has caused house pricing to explode.
The absolute best thing we could do at the moment is to cut immigration until we can get the housing crisis under control. What good does importing another million people a year do when we have nowhere to put them?
âIllegal immigrantsâ is not âderogatoryâ, it is a factual description. They broke the law to enter the country. They are in the country illegally. They are an immigrant. Illegal immigrant. This is how language works.
Bad faith? Having people apply for asylum before entering a country is a bad faith argument? Think about what is being proposed. Someone wants to get asylum in Germany. Before entering Germany they apply for asylum. They could do that from their home in the country theyâre wanting asylum from. They could do it from any other country. The AfD is just saying âdonât enter our country illegally and then ask if you can come in - ask firstâ, which is fair because once theyâre in the country there are people who will say they should not be allowed to be deported - like you. Youâre making up the existence of these âoffshore internment campsâ in this situation.
Is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoos
No, itâs the one where a bunch of room temperature IQ people thought that the annotations describing what each of the tattoos stood for were being presented as tattoos.
The US government wants to deport people who are in the country illegally. Thatâs the âprofileâ. Not a single citizen has been deported so far. Deportations are a great tool for deporting illegal immigrants. This isnât really debatable.
Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic
Ok so you just didnât get the point. Iâll explain it again:
Someone entering my house without being invited in is illegal entry. I offer a way for people to enter my house legally, a rental application. When someone applies to rent my house, I donât let them move in while I review their application, because then if I chose not to accept their application theyâre already in my house and I have to jump through all sorts of legal issues to get them out. Out of a place that they should not be. Instead what I do is review their application while they live in their current house, and if successful I let them move in.
Does that help?
I've actually bolded the one thing I still would like to see you answer in my above comment. Stop beating around the bush.
-
We don't know how good AFD would be at doing, what they claim. But none of the parties who have been in power over the last 20-30 years have done anything significant to improve the average workers economic status (e.g. make housing affordable, guarantee a reasonable pension, lessen the fear of unemployment, etc.). AFD claims, "if we get rid of the immigrants, everything will be better again" and people are believing it.
I've seen some negative reporting on afd Landesregierung, where we can see them act in power. Unfortunately I can't point to any right now.
-
I've actually bolded the one thing I still would like to see you answer in my above comment. Stop beating around the bush.
Was in the process of editing answers/questions down the bottom of my post.
-
I've actually bolded the one thing I still would like to see you answer in my above comment. Stop beating around the bush.
The âfuck up the environmentâ one is - without knowing their policy - Iâm guessing about ârenewablesâ?
Here in Australia more and more people are realising that our â100% renewablesâ power plan is a complete shit show and is anything but ârenewableâ and will cause greater long term damage. More and more people want nuclear because itâs cheaper, cleaner, and doesnât require the endless resources and space that ârenewablesâ do. Our power prices have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the world the more we shift to ârenewablesâ. Our government still refuses to tell us how much the total projected cost of the ârenewablesâ plan is, with some estimates putting it in the trillions of dollars realm.
-
I've actually bolded the one thing I still would like to see you answer in my above comment. Stop beating around the bush.
who want citizenship revoked
For who and for what? Going to have to be more specific if you want me to respond.
-
who want citizenship revoked
For who and for what? Going to have to be more specific if you want me to respond.
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.
-
The âfuck up the environmentâ one is - without knowing their policy - Iâm guessing about ârenewablesâ?
Here in Australia more and more people are realising that our â100% renewablesâ power plan is a complete shit show and is anything but ârenewableâ and will cause greater long term damage. More and more people want nuclear because itâs cheaper, cleaner, and doesnât require the endless resources and space that ârenewablesâ do. Our power prices have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the world the more we shift to ârenewablesâ. Our government still refuses to tell us how much the total projected cost of the ârenewablesâ plan is, with some estimates putting it in the trillions of dollars realm.
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.
-
The revolving door effect is separate from large political parties' influence on public broadcasters, but it exists, too. It, and many other forms of legalised corruption, has led to an erosion of trust in politicians and political institutions in which the Nazis of the AfD thrieve.
Over here, it's a bit of the opposite, but also the same in some ways, where the newsmedia controls our politicians and populous (especially Fox News with the Republicans). Behind the scenes, there are almost definitely dealings between Fox News and the Republicans that isn't public. Fox News spent a significant chunk of the past 4 years denying the outcome of the 2020 election for the benefit of Trump.
-
Over here, it's a bit of the opposite, but also the same in some ways, where the newsmedia controls our politicians and populous (especially Fox News with the Republicans). Behind the scenes, there are almost definitely dealings between Fox News and the Republicans that isn't public. Fox News spent a significant chunk of the past 4 years denying the outcome of the 2020 election for the benefit of Trump.
It's a bit more complex, but essentially the same. Corporate media control politicians who in turn control the public broadcasters.
The German rough equivalent of Fox news, the Axel Springer publishing corporation, which runs the infamous Bild tabloid and multiple other media outlets, has been continuously campaigning for a reactionary cause since its founding shortly after WW2. They do set a lot of the political agenda by pretty much dictating the public discourse.
-
It's a bit more complex, but essentially the same. Corporate media control politicians who in turn control the public broadcasters.
The German rough equivalent of Fox news, the Axel Springer publishing corporation, which runs the infamous Bild tabloid and multiple other media outlets, has been continuously campaigning for a reactionary cause since its founding shortly after WW2. They do set a lot of the political agenda by pretty much dictating the public discourse.
It's a few different companies over here (Fox, Sinclair [who controls basically all local media nationwide, John Oliver did a good segment on them], Newsmax, One America News, CNN, MSNBC), but same result that the media controls the Overton Window.
In 1987, America abolished the law that forced newsmedia corporations to cover the news in a specific way (which you can read about here)
-
It's a few different companies over here (Fox, Sinclair [who controls basically all local media nationwide, John Oliver did a good segment on them], Newsmax, One America News, CNN, MSNBC), but same result that the media controls the Overton Window.
In 1987, America abolished the law that forced newsmedia corporations to cover the news in a specific way (which you can read about here)
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.
-
Don't you see that false quotes undermine your position?
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 LĂ€nder (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.
-
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.
