Most Germans back rebel minister on migrants: poll

[Deleted]

Suffragettes were the exact opposite of populists. They were going against what people thought was right at tthe time.

They identified a problem with society, went to solve it through popular demand. That's a populist.

We've already established that populists don't have to have majority, you brought up Hitler and NSDAP, who did not gain power through majority.

[zorkuus]

They identified a problem with society, went to solve it through popular demand. That's a populist.

You haven't been absorbing anything that's been said so far, have you?

Populism is more than just "it's popular!"

[Lylandra]

And that would do nothing, because the laws are already stict enough.
What is lacking behind is the execution, the implementation of the law.
Why is it lacking? Because of a lack of funding. Why is there a lack of funding? Because Seehofer blocks it.

Now instead of increasing the funding so that the cases can be processed according to the law Seehofer propose Merkel just disregard the constitution, disregard the convention on the status of refugees (an international treaty), disregard the ECHR, and disregard the rule of law and due process and just throw them out on her own authority. Obviously, she cannot do that, because she does not have that kind of authority, Seehofer just pretends she could.

It is like you blaming Trump that you do not own Switzerland, because he could just bully them with the US' nukes into swearing fealty to you.
Nobody would buy that, so why do people buy the nonsense Seehofer is trying to sell? It is on the same level.

Because most people are not educated enough to see the similarity. Listening to loudmouths who say what your yellow-press influenced (Hello BILD and your 'Immigrants are murderers' and 'Seehofer is sooo brave'" headlines. SRSLY they are like FOX News in print) bias tells you and who promise you easy scapegoats without any feasible solution is the easier way than thinking critically.

[Deleted]

You haven't been absorbing anything that's been said so far, have you?

Maybe because what you're throwing at me is unsubstantiated and dumb, i've shown you how a populist can be good, it's been shown how a populist can be bad.

I just happen to land on the notion that in a modern social democratic society, populists are pretty good.

[Raakel]

Who canceled the Dublin treaty without consent in the first place?

Merkel or Seehofer?

[Deleted]

Indeed, there is a difference between wanting to help and inviting everyone in without thinking further down the road.

It's irresponsible and unfitting for a leader. She also helped rightwing groups to grow becubecausease of this, another issue she didn't think about.
Actually, I wonder how good of a leader she really is. It's not hard to run a country where everything is going well and is basically running by itself.
She still managed to make a mess of things, which is impressive.

knowing that something is unpopular
knowing that it will hurt you personally in elections
and then inviting refugees in reguardless when you dont have to is the sign of upmost decency towards fellow humans.

down with the populists.

[Lylandra]

Maybe because what you're throwing at me is unsubstantiated and dumb, i've shown you how a populist can be good, it's been shown how a populist can be bad.

I just happen to land on the notion that in a modern social democratic society, populists are pretty good.

Populists and activists are not the same. Populists, per definition, are opportunists who try to get the masses behind their agenda by using simple rhetoric methods, opposition to "the establishment" or "the elites" by claiming that they are "vox populi" and claim to say what "the common man" wants. Sample populists would be the AfD leaders who marched with PEGIDA claiming "Wir sind das Volk" ("We are the people").

Suffragettes, on the other hand, were mostly political activists who tried to reach their political aim. They didn't claim to be the "voice of the people" - maybe the "voice of women", but not the classic vox populi.

[Deleted]

Populists and activists are not the same. Populists, per definition, are opportunists who try to get the masses behind their agenda by using simple rhetoric methods, opposition to "the establishment" or "the elites" by claiming that they are "vox populi" and claim to say what "the common man" wants. Sample populists would be the AfD leaders who marched with PEGIDA claiming "Wir sind das Volk" ("We are the people").

Suffragettes, on the other hand, were mostly political activists who tried to reach their political aim. They didn't claim to be the "voice of the people" - maybe the "voice of women", but not the classic vox populi.

Haha, what a weird distinction to make, the whole suffragette movement in the UK is based around "what we women want" vs "what the establishment want", it's funny because suffragettes were not initially successful and popular with women until it was realized that despite a vote, there would not be a female draft.

The suffragettes were exactly what you characterized a populist to be.

[ranzino]

Who canceled the Dublin treaty without consent in the first place?

Merkel or Seehofer?

Merkel and she "directed" the former interior minister into following her ideas, then took the refugee issue out of his portfolio.
Seehofer would rebel against her privilege of direction, but stay within his own direction right concerning all border control.

Just for the bigger picture: it is alway Bavaria, were refugees will make first landfall in germany, coming in from Austria.

[Deleted]

Thanks Playertwelve For Keeping Us Informed About What Stories Are Trending In NaziLand!

[RyanEX]

Is it just me or does Merkel always change her stance and/or wording on immigration every time elections come around.

[XangXu]

How much longer is the world going to put up with the Middle East’s bullshit?
Like I don’t want to sound like a racist fuck but,

- Shitty human rights abuses
- Shitty government
- Efforts to disrupt Western democracy
- Wants nukes
- Exports death cult religions

When is the world going to do something?

[Deleted]

Merkel is mythic mode, too hard for casuals. They rather follow LFR difficulty politicans like Trump and Seehofer. Illuminati need to learn to design their game for the masses, not elitist jerks.

[ranzino]

Is it just me or does Merkel always change her stance and/or wording on immigration every time elections come around.

she asks for 2 weeks more time to sort it out with rest of EU, but really: unless you put a stopper into it the flow will continue.
you will have to stop it down in italy and greece, but if germany is no longer the juicy "carrot-on-stick" because nobody can reasonable reach us, the flow should dry out.
Merkel would need to say it blunt to Spain and Greece and Italy: you take them in = you will keep them until hell freezes over. Now guess how fast those 3 countries will take action ?

[Deleted]

As someone living in Bavaria, i absolutely despise those CSU hicks. I'm not a fan of Merkel either, but atleast she is a serious politician and doesn't happily fuck over our fellow european neighbours for a few votes. Those populist and short-sighted stunts from Seehofer and co have to end, this is not how you govern a country or behave in a coalition.

merkel serious ? hahaha what are you smoking dude ?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks Playertwelve For Keeping Us Informed About What Stories Are Trending In NaziLand!

Well in Russia theres the Worldcup and in the US Trump just met with Kim.

dude. you dont even know what a Nazi is

- - - Updated - - -

How much longer is the world going to put up with the Middle East’s bullshit?
Like I don’t want to sound like a racist fuck but,

- Shitty human rights abuses
- Shitty government
- Efforts to disrupt Western democracy
- Wants nukes
- Exports death cult religions

When is the world going to do something?

sounds like the USA

[Kiri]

Maybe because what you're throwing at me is unsubstantiated and dumb, i've shown you how a populist can be good, it's been shown how a populist can be bad.

I just happen to land on the notion that in a modern social democratic society, populists are pretty good.

It is funny how you first note that some populists can be good and others bad, then generalize that populists are always good.
For me, the primary issue with populism is that it often does not offer long-term solutions. Higher pensions, tax cuts, more spending are all things that populists love to do, but they seldom have sustainable means to finance that. Usually, they bank on increased growth taking care of the issue, like the US is doing - or they borrow more and more money. If things go awry, someone else has to sort it out, which means making unpopular decisions, which in turn feeds the populists again.

Of course there are situations where a populist can actually deliver on their promises without causing damage, usually when they come into power when everything is already going great.

Just take the situation for coal miners in the US. Coal, as a resource, is facing falling demand and increased automation, meaning that coal jobs are imperiled. The sustainable solution to this, as offered by one candidate, was to spend money on re-training coal miners, so that they could follow other careers. But that is an unpopular proposal. On the other hand, you had a guy that declared that he will just throw money at coal mining companies to save those jobs, propping up a shrinking industry with subsidies, lowering health and green standards, as well as creating artificial demand.
You fashion yourself a trader, so look at this from an economics perspective. Is the populist choice really better? Inefficiently keeping an industry alive and forcing tax payers to pay for it simply cannot be the better solution in the long run. It is just better for coal miners in the short run.

Because that is what populism is in most cases. Focus on the present at the expense of the future. Shifting the burden from your current voters to their children.

[Deleted]

It is funny how you first note that some populists can be good and others bad, then generalize that populists are always good.
For me, the primary issue with populism is that it often does not offer long-term solutions. Higher pensions, tax cuts, more spending are all things that populists love to do, but they seldom have sustainable means to finance that. Usually, they bank on increased growth taking care of the issue, like the US is doing - or they borrow more and more money. If things go awry, someone else has to sort it out, which means making unpopular decisions, which in turn feeds the populists again.

Of course there are situations where a populist can actually deliver on their promises without causing damage, usually when they come into power when everything is already going great.

Just take the situation for coal miners in the US. Coal, as a resource, is facing falling demand and increased automation, meaning that coal jobs are imperiled. The sustainable solution to this, as offered by one candidate, was to spend money on re-training coal miners, so that they could follow other careers. But that is an unpopular proposal. On the other hand, you had a guy that declared that he will just throw money at coal mining companies to save those jobs, propping up a shrinking industry with subsidies, lowering health and green standards, as well as creating artificial demand.
You fashion yourself a trader, so look at this from an economics perspective. Is the populist choice really better? Inefficiently keeping an industry alive and forcing tax payers to pay for it simply cannot be the better solution in the long run. It is just better for coal miners in the short run.

Because that is what populism is in most cases. Focus on the present at the expense of the future. Shifting the burden from your current voters to their children.

I agree I was a bit unclear on what I meant, but I think the existence of a populist is a very good and most of the time a positive thing, in the sense that they act as opposition and force the status quo to take steps to appease the public.

Now, that isn't to say there aren't examples of bad populists, you gave us one example and then there's the murderous austrian, but in both cases I think they tell us something incredibly important, in that they are (even though it's for their own gain) voicing a discontent in the voter base to the people who make decisions. I'm not studied enough on the subject of coal to say either way, but at face value, no I don't think it's kosher to leech money from tax payers into people who shouldn't have it. Mind you, like 75% of my income goes back to the government through taxes.

Populists are like any other politicians, I never said I would or do agree with every populist, never seen a populist without an ideology for instance.

[Arrashi]

As someone living in Bavaria, i absolutely despise those CSU hicks. I'm not a fan of Merkel either, but atleast she is a serious politician and doesn't happily fuck over our fellow european neighbours for a few votes. Those populist and short-sighted stunts from Seehofer and co have to end, this is not how you govern a country or behave in a coalition.

*cough* trying to force refugee quotas on eastern european countries *cough*

[Deleted]

*cough* trying to force refugee quotas on eastern european countries *cough*

Isn't that EU?

[Player Twelve]

Isn't that EU?

Implying Merkel wasn't part of that decision.