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 can’t 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?
“Illegal immigrants” is not “derogatory”, 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 they’re wanting asylum from. They could do it from any other country. The AfD is just saying “don’t enter our country illegally and then ask if you can come in - ask first”, which is fair because once they’re in the country there are people who will say they should not be allowed to be deported - like you. You’re making up the existence of these “offshore internment camps” in this situation.
Is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoos
No, it’s 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. That’s the “profile”. Not a single citizen has been deported so far. Deportations are a great tool for deporting illegal immigrants. This isn’t really debatable.
Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic
Ok so you just didn’t get the point. I’ll 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 don’t let them move in while I review their application, because then if I chose not to accept their application they’re 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?
All of your “they want to do x/y/z because they’re too woke” stuff - what actually are their policies? Do you mean that they want to defund government funded media who push certain ideologies and implement certain policies like DEI?
The “remove the outmoded political party system” seems like something most of the far left want to do doesn’t it?
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”.
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’t because you are, but that’s weak AF and an abuse of your mod powers.
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.
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 can’t 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?
“Illegal immigrants” is not “derogatory”, 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 they’re wanting asylum from. They could do it from any other country. The AfD is just saying “don’t enter our country illegally and then ask if you can come in - ask first”, which is fair because once they’re in the country there are people who will say they should not be allowed to be deported - like you. You’re making up the existence of these “offshore internment camps” in this situation.
No, it’s 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. That’s the “profile”. Not a single citizen has been deported so far. Deportations are a great tool for deporting illegal immigrants. This isn’t really debatable.
Ok so you just didn’t get the point. I’ll 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 don’t let them move in while I review their application, because then if I chose not to accept their application they’re 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?
All of your “they want to do x/y/z because they’re too woke” stuff - what actually are their policies? Do you mean that they want to defund government funded media who push certain ideologies and implement certain policies like DEI?
The “remove the outmoded political party system” seems like something most of the far left want to do doesn’t it?
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”.
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’t because you are, but that’s weak AF and an abuse of your mod powers.
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.