NationStates

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Page wrote:
It would only take small gains for SPD, Greens, and the Left for the three to form a coalition.

say that doesnt happen.

then what.

Be like Northern Ireland. Have no Government for three years.

Greed and Death wrote:

North German Realm wrote:Which is essentially proof that German democracy is meaningless. What is the point of elections if you just redo them until you get the result the State wants?

Except in this case the winner of the election decided to trigger new elections.

Doesn't change the fact that "redoing elections until we get the result I want" is generally against the whole point of having elections.

North German Realm wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
Except in this case the winner of the election decided to trigger new elections.

Doesn't change the fact that "redoing elections until we get the result I want" is generally against the whole point of having elections.

The newly elected leader was not legally forced to step down and allow a new election. The CDU and FDP could have tried to work with AfD if they wanted to, but they knew there would be consequences if they did so, that the people would turn against them.

Heloin wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:
say that doesnt happen.

then what.

Be like Northern Ireland. Have no Government for three years.

Be like Northern Ireland is advice no one, any where, would ever give

Page wrote:

North German Realm wrote:Doesn't change the fact that "redoing elections until we get the result I want" is generally against the whole point of having elections.

The newly elected leader was not legally forced to step down and allow a new election. The CDU and FDP could have tried to work with AfD if they wanted to, but they knew there would be consequences if they did so, that the people would turn against them.

That totally won't backfire!

Proctopeo wrote:

Page wrote:
The newly elected leader was not legally forced to step down and allow a new election. The CDU and FDP could have tried to work with AfD if they wanted to, but they knew there would be consequences if they did so, that the people would turn against them.

That totally won't backfire!

Probably not. You see this a lot in European politics: a mainstream party will try to work together with a more extreme party, the negotiations fail, and in the subsequent election the extreme party tanks and more mainstream parties can govern again.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:That totally won't backfire!

Probably not. You see this a lot in European politics: a mainstream party will try to work together with a more extreme party, the negotiations fail, and in the subsequent election the extreme party tanks and more mainstream parties can govern again.

Do you actually see it a lot?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:That totally won't backfire!

Probably not. You see this a lot in European politics: a mainstream party will try to work together with a more extreme party, the negotiations fail, and in the subsequent election the extreme party tanks and more mainstream parties can govern again.

Right now polling is showing a party called Alternative for Germany is in the lead for the new election. I think that is one of the mainstream parties right ?

European party naming conventions are weird. The CDU is neither Christian nor Democratic nor a Union.

Greed and Death wrote:European party naming conventions are weird. The CDU is neither Christian nor Democratic nor a Union.

The CDU was founded as a union between pro-democracy Protestants and Catholics following WW2, hence Christian Democratic Union.

Eglaecia wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:European party naming conventions are weird. The CDU is neither Christian nor Democratic nor a Union.

The CDU was founded as a union between pro-democracy Protestants and Catholics following WW2, hence Christian Democratic Union.

But has ceased being so for some decades.

Greed and Death wrote:

Eglaecia wrote:The CDU was founded as a union between pro-democracy Protestants and Catholics following WW2, hence Christian Democratic Union.

But has ceased being so for some decades.

CDU is split between the dominant neoliberal faction and another milquetoast conservative faction. Christian Democracy in western Europe is just another name for "liberal conservatism" now. When Adenauer was around it was certainly Christian Democratic.

Risottia wrote:neofascist AfD

Why not neo-Nazi?

Novus America wrote:

Heloin wrote:Be like Northern Ireland. Have no Government for three years.

Be like Northern Ireland is advice no one, any where, would ever give

Especially as they seem to be heading to troubles 2.0

Page wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Which does what exactly? No one party will win a majority, the AfD come in second or third, and then we are right back to square one.

It would only take small gains for SPD, Greens, and the Left for the three to form a coalition.

I am not sure the Left is really any better than the AFD. I would prefer a CDU-SPD-Green coalition.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:That totally won't backfire!

Probably not. You see this a lot in European politics: a mainstream party will try to work together with a more extreme party, the negotiations fail, and in the subsequent election the extreme party tanks and more mainstream parties can govern again.

Not sure how often that is the case. Sure the far right often struggles AFTER coming into power, as it has a hard time actually governing effectively, it is better being a spoiler.

But here it never actually took power:
Actually it is looking like this will help the AfD.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... s-defenses

Greed and Death wrote:

Eglaecia wrote:The CDU was founded as a union between pro-democracy Protestants and Catholics following WW2, hence Christian Democratic Union.

But has ceased being so for some decades.

Why not? Because the socially conservative policies they would ideally support aren't supported by their more liberal coalition parties? Or because you think Merkel was a bad Christian for being charitable towards refugees instead of acting like a racist xenophobe?

Novus America wrote:Probably not. You see this a lot in European politics: a mainstream party will try to work together with a more extreme party, the negotiations fail, and in the subsequent election the extreme party tanks and more mainstream parties can govern again.

Not sure how often that is the case. Sure the far right often struggles AFTER coming into power, as it has a hard time actually governing effectively, it is better being a spoiler.[/quote]
I don't know, when we look at populist parties in Europe we need to divide them into different categories instead of just grouping them into one and applying the same logic to all of them. I've grouped them into three camps personally: those that can be considered almost or as professional as non-populist parties in the country (AfD, Fidesz, PiS), those that are more historically established (National Rally, SVP/UDC, FrP), and then the new & sensational parties (PVV, Vox, UKIP).

The former parties seem to do well when they're able to win sizeable numbers of seats and lead coalitions themselves. The problem with this is that the only examples of them taking power are in Eastern European countries with a different political climate to western Europe.
Of the historically established ones, they seem to variate. National Rally have been a pariah since their founding (largely due to their far more extreme past) whereas the SVP/UDC in Switzerland and the Norwegian FrP have been top parties in their respective countries for decades.
The newer parties are different though. This is where your thesis comes true, as we can see with the PVV in the Netherlands. Entering into government forces them to moderate themselves which surprisingly makes them less electable.

Otira wrote:

Risottia wrote:neofascist AfD

Why not neo-Nazi?

They're neither.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:But has ceased being so for some decades.

Why not? Because the socially conservative policies they would ideally support aren't supported by their more liberal coalition parties? Or because you think Merkel was a bad Christian for being charitable towards refugees instead of acting like a racist xenophobe?

Or its because they're a neoliberal party committed to enlightenment values instead of Christian values.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:But has ceased being so for some decades.

Why not? Because the socially conservative policies they would ideally support aren't supported by their more liberal coalition parties? Or because you think Merkel was a bad Christian for being charitable towards refugees instead of acting like a racist xenophobe?

Because protecting ones people, country and borders is now xenophobic and racist?

Nakena wrote:Merkel has demanded to undo the result.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51399445

Chancellor Angela Merkel - whose own party also backed Mr Kemmerich - called Wednesday's election "unforgivable".

The AfD has grown in popularity in recent years but has been condemned for its extreme views on immigration, freedom of speech and the press.

Wednesday's vote was described as a political earthquake as it was the first time the AfD had helped form a government in Germany, breaking a consensus among the main parties never to work with extremist parties..... "Resignation is unavoidable"

Yup.. This stuff is clown level doublespeak/think and chilling to see so openly and forcefully stated.

That second line is the literal height of both irony and projection. We can't let them speak (or now even vote apparently) because they are claimed to have anti free speech views. Cries that always seem to come from the 'you're only allowed to think/say what we agree with' crowd. Also.. can't help but laugh at yet another example of how they try to explain the rise in popularity of parties willing to even rethink the standard enforced dogmatic positions on certain issues, as having "extreme views". This goes back to disturbing, vile arguments i've heard since brexit. That the people should never have had, or have, a say in 'certain issues' because that's what we elect government for.. and OC, if ALL of the elites/parties/politicians hold the same position.. That's just too bad.

Let that last line sink in for a bit. It's not even a case of the people voting for the "wrong person", but the wrong people voting!
This is the future of leftsit/prog maximum intolerance, everyone else is extremist/nazi/fascist/bigot, outrage culture.



-----------------------------------

Spain2007 wrote:When you call everyone who dosent think like you a fascist, and you call them authoritarian? isnt your mindset authoritarian?
do you know what even fascism means?? do you even know who Mussolini is? do you even know difference between nazism and classical fascism?

you remind me of right wing americans that call everyone who disagres with you a commie or a socialist

classical fascism is more totalitarian centre than exstreme right

-----------------------------------

Bear Stearns wrote:

Leninist Haven wrote:I'm becoming increasingly worried that nothing is being considered fascist anymore. One of their candidates openly associated with a man who glorified Nazism, going on a trip with him in a far, far-right rally. They think that CDU are not harsh enough, and the CDU are the moderates. Their #1 issue seems to be talking about killing immigrants within a legal framework. To imply that it's ridiculous to call them fascist is strange, as there is some evidence, whether one agrees with it or not.

Who's fault do you think that is?

People have a problem with being called a fascist because fascists are like the one political group against whom violence and repression is socially acceptable (it is illegal to be a fascist in several western countries). So when you call people fascist, you are really calling for them to be suppressed. And that really pisses people off.

Oh no! You can't point that out.. People with the wrong ideas have only the right to learn the correct way to think through being shouted at, called names, deplatformed and silenced, how dare you suggest the people attacking those who disagree, has any responsibility for turning them away from the sole correct (acceptable) path. It's not our fault that they won't change their minds and start agreeing with us when we scream at them!

/s

Sums up the logic and cause of pretty much all the conflict and social culture fighting going on in the last ~15 years or so. Also see the "rise" of the "far" right narrative and hysteria being pushed as of late.

James_xenoland wrote:

Nakena wrote:Merkel has demanded to undo the result.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51399445

Chancellor Angela Merkel - whose own party also backed Mr Kemmerich - called Wednesday's election "unforgivable".

The AfD has grown in popularity in recent years but has been condemned for its extreme views on immigration, freedom of speech and the press.

Wednesday's vote was described as a political earthquake as it was the first time the AfD had helped form a government in Germany, breaking a consensus among the main parties never to work with extremist parties..... "Resignation is unavoidable"

Yup.. This stuff is clown level doublespeak/think and chilling to see so openly and forcefully stated.

That second line is the literal height of both irony and projection. We can't let them speak (or now even vote apparently) because they are claimed to have anti free speech views. Cries that always seem to come from the 'you're only allowed to think/say what we agree with' crowd. Also.. can't help but laugh at yet another example of how they try to explain the rise in popularity of parties willing to even rethink the standard enforced dogmatic positions on certain issues, as having "extreme views". This goes back to disturbing, vile arguments i've heard since brexit. That the people should never have had, or have, a say in 'certain issues' because that's what we elect government for.. and OC, if ALL of the elites/parties/politicians hold the same position.. That's just too bad.

Let that last line sink in for a bit. It's not even a case of the people voting for the "wrong person", but the wrong people voting!
This is the future of leftsit/prog maximum intolerance, everyone else is extremist/nazi/fascist/bigot, outrage culture.

Imagine being 2/3 of the mainstream media, pundits and OP-editors speaking in the same tune, using the same phrases, the same line of argumentation and of course habouring the same thought and ideology to varying degrees. That isn't the future. Thats what things are like in Germany.

Vistulange wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Be quiet, you're gonna spoil the rose colored view of world war II as a fight between the forces of good and evil.

Iunno, pal, not even the Soviets stuck people into concentration camps for just being born to incorrect parents, or being crippled, or of a wrong ethnicity. That's saying a lot.

LOL what!? The Soviets kept some concentration camps open for years after the war for stalin and the government to use to get rid of people in! The Gulag system in general. (~5-15 million worked, beaten and starved to death) And that's just the beginning. Don't forget how the "co-heroes" of WW2 spent a few years trying to become the forth member of the axis alliance! (see the German–Soviet Axis talks) Only becoming a partial one by the time germany attacked. But not before signing multiple agreements with nazi germany over a few years. The non-aggression pact being one of them, also was the damning German–Soviet Credit Agreement (1939) and German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940) -Note that this was well after Czechoslovakia and Austria etc.- Those lead to the soviets sending vast amounts of raw materials needed by the germans for well over a year! They literally supplied the invasion of both the western allies (France and the UK) and everything leading up to the start of the war! The soviets were sending raw materials right up until the day of invasion. In fact the last train crossed the border into germany the very morning of barbarossa! The nazi's even used it as part of their propaganda excuse that the soviets crossed the border and attacked first. The most damning thing of all though comes from the non-aggression agreement. Where the nazis and soviets conspired to invade and divide up Poland (and others) together! Leading in the aftermath to the soviets murdering over 20k Polish military personnel and civilians (Katyn massacre), deported anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions from their own country to Siberia, and lead to the deaths of ~250k to well over a million in the years after the invasion!

And this is just the BEGINNING of their complicity and crimes. The soviets were no victims or heroes of WW2, their people maybe, but not the country or government! They helped build up the nazi state/military and very much only got what they had coming in the end.

Novus America wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Most of us could learn from the past and want to prevent it from happening again. Others view it as more of an instruction manual.

The thing is it is easier said than done. How exactly do we do that?

Enforce the law. § 130 StGB Volksverhetzung. Hatred of minorities is not legal and should not be tolerated so much that people who have those views can form coalitions with legitimate parties.

Geneviev wrote:

Novus America wrote:
The thing is it is easier said than done. How exactly do we do that?

Enforce the law. § 130 StGB Volksverhetzung. Hatred of minorities is not legal and should not be tolerated so much that people who have those views can form coalitions with legitimate parties.

Outlawing the Nazi speech only seems to have made it worse, maybe if you took a more American approach you wouldn't be having the Nazis get elected into government again.

Greed and Death wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Enforce the law. § 130 StGB Volksverhetzung. Hatred of minorities is not legal and should not be tolerated so much that people who have those views can form coalitions with legitimate parties.

Outlawing the Nazi speech only seems to have made it worse, maybe if you took a more American approach you wouldn't be having the Nazis get elected into government again.

Americans are doing no better, presumably because there is little difference between not enforcing the law and not having a law.