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.
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. Like that quote you just made is a textbook bad faith argument. You invented something and attributed it to me based on thin air, acting like you know my intentions more than I do.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I’m advocating for democracy. What about this is hard to understand? Not all democracy gives the result that you want.
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?
Ok now there are 2 possibilities here:
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. Like that quote you just made is a textbook bad faith argument. You invented something and attributed it to me based on thin air, acting like you know my intentions more than I do.
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?
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.