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.
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.
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”.
Let’s say that 75% of a country want to legalize slavery for example, and all vote for the party that wants that and they win the election in a landslide the size of which has never been seen before. Do you think that a minority party that got say 5% of the votes should be able to just take power and go against what the overwhelming majority of people voted for? Why? On what grounds? Where do you go from there? You’ve just installed a dictator and thrown out democracy.
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.
Your view of a “democratic society” is not based on actual definitions.
You may need to look at definitions. You are simply arguing against modern democracy. It may comply with the Greek definition of the term but things have changed.
If 75% of the population agree on something, do you think that the 25% should get to overrule it?
If those 75% unjustly take away the rights of a part of the citizenship? Obviously the 25% overrule them. Human rights come before majority vote.
I displayed no enthusiasm whatsoever.
Tell that to the person responsible for your phrasing.
Trump just won 53%….what if JD Vance wins 63% next time?
Trump somehow keeps dropping hints that people won’t need to vote again. Weird how that happens, especially given that the admin ignores parliament and law and due process wherever it can. Trump’s ratings of course drop right now. The only reason for him to even allow another election to go ahead is if there’s propaganda win to be wrung out of it.
Would you agree that they won the democratic election and should form government? Would you agree that the democratic process was followed?
For one thing, in Germany legal proceedings both could and should have occurred against Afd at some point in the past years. Germany shouldn’t even be at this point, the constitution does allow a way out. Politicians of democratic forces literally didn’t do their job.
The constitution does also include Art. 20 p. 4, legitimizing a general strike against people trying to undo the constitutional order. Realistically, it likely wouldn’t happen nearly at the level needed to make a difference though.
In any case, no, you shouldn’t give power to obviously antidemocratic forces.
The “fuck up the environment” one is - without knowing their policy - I’m guessing about “renewables”?
Here in Australia more and more people are realising that our “100% renewables” power plan is a complete shit show and is anything but “renewable” and will cause greater long term damage. More and more people want nuclear because it’s cheaper, cleaner, and doesn’t require the endless resources and space that “renewables” do. Our power prices have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the world the more we shift to “renewables”. Our government still refuses to tell us how much the total projected cost of the “renewables” 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. You can literally look at Trump in many ways. Afd is, in large part, propped by the same people as he is. Elmo even spoke at their party convention.
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
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.
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.
“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”.
Can you please actually provide some evidence for why those are “bad faith” arguments?
Not sure if serious but I posed the question right at the top. I posed it multiple times, I bolded it, I made you aware that I bolded it.
I’m sorry, do you still not see the direct relevance of that?
If you can’t see a difference between running a country and renting a house … Maybe have a think and you’ll find a myriad ways in which the situations don’t compare.
You can’t just claim misinformation without ever even responding lol
Of course I can. I don’t need to spend time writing up everything before I allow myself to think it. But here you go:
You compared the lifetime of a battery to the half-life of nuclear waste, which is dumb. You assumed that solar panels or batteries are unrecyclable, which is false. You conveniently omitted that uranium must be mined as well, which is kind of a relevant omission.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Let’s say that 75% of a country want to legalize slavery for example, and all vote for the party that wants that and they win the election in a landslide the size of which has never been seen before. Do you think that a minority party that got say 5% of the votes should be able to just take power and go against what the overwhelming majority of people voted for? Why? On what grounds? Where do you go from there? You’ve just installed a dictator and thrown out democracy.
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?
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.
Removed by mod
You may need to look at definitions. You are simply arguing against modern democracy. It may comply with the Greek definition of the term but things have changed.
If those 75% unjustly take away the rights of a part of the citizenship? Obviously the 25% overrule them. Human rights come before majority vote.
Tell that to the person responsible for your phrasing.
Trump somehow keeps dropping hints that people won’t need to vote again. Weird how that happens, especially given that the admin ignores parliament and law and due process wherever it can. Trump’s ratings of course drop right now. The only reason for him to even allow another election to go ahead is if there’s propaganda win to be wrung out of it.
For one thing, in Germany legal proceedings both could and should have occurred against Afd at some point in the past years. Germany shouldn’t even be at this point, the constitution does allow a way out. Politicians of democratic forces literally didn’t do their job.
The constitution does also include Art. 20 p. 4, legitimizing a general strike against people trying to undo the constitutional order. Realistically, it likely wouldn’t happen nearly at the level needed to make a difference though.
In any case, no, you shouldn’t give power to obviously antidemocratic forces.
The “fuck up the environment” one is - without knowing their policy - I’m guessing about “renewables”?
Here in Australia more and more people are realising that our “100% renewables” power plan is a complete shit show and is anything but “renewable” and will cause greater long term damage. More and more people want nuclear because it’s cheaper, cleaner, and doesn’t require the endless resources and space that “renewables” do. Our power prices have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the world the more we shift to “renewables”. Our government still refuses to tell us how much the total projected cost of the “renewables” 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. You can literally look at Trump in many ways. Afd is, in large part, propped by the same people as he is. Elmo even spoke at their party convention.
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
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.
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. You have not shown any evidence of me 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.
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”.
Can you please actually provide some evidence for why those are “bad faith” arguments?
Not sure if serious but I posed the question right at the top. I posed it multiple times, I bolded it, I made you aware that I bolded it.
If you can’t see a difference between running a country and renting a house … Maybe have a think and you’ll find a myriad ways in which the situations don’t compare.
Of course I can. I don’t need to spend time writing up everything before I allow myself to think it. But here you go:
You compared the lifetime of a battery to the half-life of nuclear waste, which is dumb. You assumed that solar panels or batteries are unrecyclable, which is false. You conveniently omitted that uranium must be mined as well, which is kind of a relevant omission.
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.