lichess.org
Donate

whats your opinion , should the german party afd be banned ?

tpr

"banning hostile parties"

  • It does not work. The same party comes back stronger under another name.

"Weimar was absolutely defenseless"

  • Weimar resisted the rise of Hitler, but to no avail. The core message of Hitler, about the Versailles Treaty being unfair and he making Germany great again appealed to the voters.

"I think today's Germany is not defensive enough"

  • Today's Germany needs no defense, but initiative. Germany needs a new Angela Merkel. Vision, statesmanship.
"banning hostile parties" * It does not work. The same party comes back stronger under another name. "Weimar was absolutely defenseless" * Weimar resisted the rise of Hitler, but to no avail. The core message of Hitler, about the Versailles Treaty being unfair and he making Germany great again appealed to the voters. "I think today's Germany is not defensive enough" * Today's Germany needs no defense, but initiative. Germany needs a new Angela Merkel. Vision, statesmanship.
Cedur216edited

It does not work. The same party comes back stronger under another name

A party ban also includes the ban to create successor organisations. It works for at least a few decades.

Hitler rose due to the worldwide economical crisis, but also due to the defects of Weimar's constitution.

Germany needs a new Angela Merkel. Vision, statesmanship.

Agreeing on that, but still proceedings for an AfD ban need to be checked, as AfD is quite clearly unconstitutional

> It does not work. The same party comes back stronger under another name A party ban also includes the ban to create successor organisations. It works for at least a few decades. Hitler rose due to the worldwide economical crisis, but also due to the defects of Weimar's constitution. > Germany needs a new Angela Merkel. Vision, statesmanship. Agreeing on that, but still proceedings for an AfD ban need to be checked, as AfD is quite clearly unconstitutional
tpr

"A party ban also includes the ban to create successor organisations."

  • That is not practical. You cannot prevent formation of a new party, like Front National -> Rassemblement National in France.
    A political party should be fought in the election campaign, not in a courtroom.
    Fighting a political party in the courtroom even makes it stronger.
    Dad Bolsonaro is in jail, son Bolsonaro is doing well.

"Hitler rose due to the worldwide economical crisis, but also due to the defects of Weimar's constitution."

  • No, mainly because the Versailles Treaty was obviously unfair and he was the only one to feed on that.
"A party ban also includes the ban to create successor organisations." * That is not practical. You cannot prevent formation of a new party, like Front National -> Rassemblement National in France. A political party should be fought in the election campaign, not in a courtroom. Fighting a political party in the courtroom even makes it stronger. Dad Bolsonaro is in jail, son Bolsonaro is doing well. "Hitler rose due to the worldwide economical crisis, but also due to the defects of Weimar's constitution." * No, mainly because the Versailles Treaty was obviously unfair and he was the only one to feed on that.
Noflapsedited

"The USA is populated by former immigrants, and now turns against new immigrants,"

@tpr, This is NOT TRUE. It is an utter, propagandized view of the situation.

The United States, like EVERY civilized nation I believe, has IMMIGRATION LAW. And many immigrants come in lawfully, following the nation's laws, and they are welcomed, and applauded, even cherished -- not turned against.

But by conflating every person who crosses the border with one of these lawful immigrants, it simply throws shade at a country that -- again, like EVERY civilized country -- now follows its own immigration laws, although belatedly.

Using an apparent, vague, blanket definition of "immigrant" without regard to law, combined with the apparent implication that it's a bad change to resist any "immigrant," a military-aged male with many criminal convictions who sneaks across the border and continues to commit crime, is a to-be-valued "immigrant," as would be a foreign terrorist who sneaks across the border and sets up a cell.

Too many people, including many who are not even American, fashionably, even vehemently, lecture America about immigration in a way that displays no clear respect for immigration law.

This has gotten beyond tiring in modern life, and too many, who have no understanding of the importance or purpose of immigration law, just nod along. Because it's fashionable, and many young people, especially, are fearful of not fitting in.

The average American has MUCH sympathy for immigrants, as do I, too. Indeed, most Americans are kind even toward immigrants who are not here lawfully, and I, too, have empathy and kindness. But it must be realized that America was FLOODED with tens of millions of people in a very short time, which resulted in raised rents, huge burdens on hospitals and schools, and a lot of crime that otherwise would not have occurred. Some of that crime resulting in the killing of innocents.

Not everybody who entered was a good choice for entry. Regardless of the double-talking that may greet this post.

I, personally, am sympathetic to MOST who entered, nevertheless. But too many people are utterly naive in their discussion of the matter and try to pretend away the importance of careful planning and immigration law.

When Russian troops stormed into Ukraine and stayed -- should they be valued and welcomed as, giggle, "immigrants" ? Or is the notion that Ukraine has a lawful, defensible border OKAY, but such a border is just not okay for the U.S. ?

Sometimes, I feel like the world has gone silly. Valuing an ordered, valued immigration process and valuing immigration law itself is NOT some manifestation of mindless right-wing hatred. And the U.S. is hardly the only country to value both -- check out Canada, and see if IT would be happy with uncontrolled, mass-crossing of its borders. Anybody who thinks so might want to do a bit of real checking.

"The USA is populated by former immigrants, and now turns against new immigrants," @tpr, This is NOT TRUE. It is an utter, propagandized view of the situation. The United States, like EVERY civilized nation I believe, has IMMIGRATION LAW. And many immigrants come in lawfully, following the nation's laws, and they are welcomed, and applauded, even cherished -- not turned against. But by conflating every person who crosses the border with one of these lawful immigrants, it simply throws shade at a country that -- again, like EVERY civilized country -- now follows its own immigration laws, although belatedly. Using an apparent, vague, blanket definition of "immigrant" without regard to law, combined with the apparent implication that it's a bad change to resist any "immigrant," a military-aged male with many criminal convictions who sneaks across the border and continues to commit crime, is a to-be-valued "immigrant," as would be a foreign terrorist who sneaks across the border and sets up a cell. Too many people, including many who are not even American, fashionably, even vehemently, lecture America about immigration in a way that displays no clear respect for immigration law. This has gotten beyond tiring in modern life, and too many, who have no understanding of the importance or purpose of immigration law, just nod along. Because it's fashionable, and many young people, especially, are fearful of not fitting in. The average American has MUCH sympathy for immigrants, as do I, too. Indeed, most Americans are kind even toward immigrants who are not here lawfully, and I, too, have empathy and kindness. But it must be realized that America was FLOODED with tens of millions of people in a very short time, which resulted in raised rents, huge burdens on hospitals and schools, and a lot of crime that otherwise would not have occurred. Some of that crime resulting in the killing of innocents. Not everybody who entered was a good choice for entry. Regardless of the double-talking that may greet this post. I, personally, am sympathetic to MOST who entered, nevertheless. But too many people are utterly naive in their discussion of the matter and try to pretend away the importance of careful planning and immigration law. When Russian troops stormed into Ukraine and stayed -- should they be valued and welcomed as, giggle, "immigrants" ? Or is the notion that Ukraine has a lawful, defensible border OKAY, but such a border is just not okay for the U.S. ? Sometimes, I feel like the world has gone silly. Valuing an ordered, valued immigration process and valuing immigration law itself is NOT some manifestation of mindless right-wing hatred. And the U.S. is hardly the only country to value both -- check out Canada, and see if IT would be happy with uncontrolled, mass-crossing of its borders. Anybody who thinks so might want to do a bit of real checking.
tpr

Most immigrants are not criminals, they seek a better life.
Nevertheless ICE deports them as if they were all criminals.

Most immigrants are not criminals, they seek a better life. Nevertheless ICE deports them as if they were all criminals.
Noflapsedited

ICE is typically not targeting "just anybody" when it raids a house or building, @tpr. I suggest you be careful to get all the details, rather than accept blanket characterizations.

Perhaps find a regular news source that more fully informs.

But of course, that might make some political positions harder to hold.

ICE is typically not targeting "just anybody" when it raids a house or building, @tpr. I suggest you be careful to get all the details, rather than accept blanket characterizations. Perhaps find a regular news source that more fully informs. But of course, that might make some political positions harder to hold.
Noflaps

"npr" Ah. I see. Is that your most objective source?

"npr" Ah. I see. Is that your most objective source?
Voldstar

@Noflaps said ^

"npr" Ah. I see. Is that your most objective source?

I’m supposing Fox News meets the gold standard of objectivity.

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/58ekHsqb) > "npr" Ah. I see. Is that your most objective source? I’m supposing Fox News meets the gold standard of objectivity.
Noflapsedited

Are you? Fascinating. I find Fox to lean conservative or populist, myself.

Objective facts can be found in many places. It's the frequency and reliability of their presentation that matters.

Which sources thought we had the "best Biden ever" until not long ago? What did npr think? Do you recall?

The safest thing to do is probably to permit ourselves a bit of meaningful variety, don't you think? And not stick with ANY few sources as the only we hear from, especially when they all (giggle) sound the same. That way, we don't miss things and have no idea what's really happening some of the time.

There have been entire, important, enlightening hearings take place that many people have no idea ever took place, because they don't seem to fit the political narrative of their constant, favored sources. Some sources seem to minimize or even omit coverage of a lot that is actually important to know about. And many people have no idea that's happened. Indeed, they're certain that they are well informed.

Some popular sources have gotten some important things very, very wrong -- and I'm not sure everybody realizes the extent or nature of the errors, even to this day. Indeed, I'm relatively sure many do not. Otherwise, there'd be less certainty manifested in threads.

Are you? Fascinating. I find Fox to lean conservative or populist, myself. Objective facts can be found in many places. It's the frequency and reliability of their presentation that matters. Which sources thought we had the "best Biden ever" until not long ago? What did npr think? Do you recall? The safest thing to do is probably to permit ourselves a bit of meaningful variety, don't you think? And not stick with ANY few sources as the only we hear from, especially when they all (giggle) sound the same. That way, we don't miss things and have no idea what's really happening some of the time. There have been entire, important, enlightening hearings take place that many people have no idea ever took place, because they don't seem to fit the political narrative of their constant, favored sources. Some sources seem to minimize or even omit coverage of a lot that is actually important to know about. And many people have no idea that's happened. Indeed, they're certain that they are well informed. Some popular sources have gotten some important things very, very wrong -- and I'm not sure everybody realizes the extent or nature of the errors, even to this day. Indeed, I'm relatively sure many do not. Otherwise, there'd be less certainty manifested in threads.