Most Germans back rebel minister on migrants: poll

[Noradin]

Merkel has a duty to Germany first, not random foreigners. The foreigners don't pay her salary.

In other times, she would be on trial for high treason.

You mean if she went against the constitution? For example by denying refugees due process.
Yes, that owuld be treason.

High treason is impossible without a king.

[Player Twelve]

High treason is impossible without a king.

Since when?

[Machismo]

Well, it would appear that most Germans are nationalistic anti-freedom fighters. No surprise there.

[Kiri]

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.

The only problem is that once democracy erodes, populists become an actual issue. It is fine if populists act as indicators for social issues that non-populists should pick up. However, when populists themselves become too strong, they can be detrimental to the political discourse. Just look at what is happening in the US and in large parts of Europe.
Most people don't like complex issues. They want clear answers. Populists provide these answers, by boiling issues down to insultingly simplistic forms. That shapes the political discussion, if the populist becomes too powerful, since a great many people simply ignore complex truths in favour of simple half-lies.
Just look at the issue discussed here. Merkel's position is that due to the complex situation we face in the EU, we should first hammer out a deal with our closest allies, but is not, in general, opposed to limiting migration. She just seeks that sustainable way that does not create more issues. Seehofer, on the other end, can say "let's just do it. screw those guys", because he personally does not have to fix the issues created by that.
This is no longer Seehofer indicating an issue that Merkel should tackle, this is Seehofer demanding a radical and simplistic solution. And obviously, most people would prefer his solution. Once you 'legitimize' (using the word very loosely here) the populists, they just have the advantage. A complex, unpopular truth can never win against a simple, populist half-truth. That's just how humans are wired.

[ranzino]

Seehofer is not just one minister you can easily remove. People tend to forget that he's also the leader of the sister party CSU, which contributes about 6% to the majority. A majority that would be lost if Merkel removes him from power (as it stands the CSU is fully backing Seehofer and would break the coalition worst case). Which would mean new elections, or Merkel begging the Greens for backup.... which I can't imagine at all.

Yes, Seehofer is a populist, so is Söder. But this one is 100% on Merkel. She had 3 years to work on a European solution without success, it's time for decisions on a national level if we can't come to an agreement. You can do your own thing and still work on a better solution in the meantime, just like every single other European country at the moment.

CDU+SPD would still hold majority, but only at the small margin of 353 out of 700. nobody sane enough will risk that for another 3years+ parliamental period. so yes, CSU is able to kill the government; Merkel was never fond of minority governments.

[Noradin]

The example your using is pretty much 1 bad apple spoils the bunch. We got a lot of Somali mislims in the US that aren't doing that. The EU however aren't bothering to see if they could be threats. Hell you had " refugees" fucking visting the country they fled. That right there should be grounds for getting kicked out for 2 reasons. 1. It's safe enough to vist. It's safe enough to live in. 2. Possible terrorist risk.

Do you have a source for this nonsense other than your ass?

- - - Updated - - -

Since when?

Well ok, if she were to personally murder the president of Germany that would count, too.

[Flatspriest]

Q: "How do we deal with the migrant problem in Europe?"

A1: "Let them in!"

A2: "Kick them out!"

A3: "Stop the US from bombing their countries into smithereens so they no longer have a reason to come to Europe?"

*Q throws A3 out the window*

No but for real, the migrant crisis is entirely the United States fault and European countries should bury them in tariffs until they start taking their fair share of the migrants (100% of them) or stop bombing the middle east.

Since when is the US bombing Syria to smithereens? MOST of the immigrants to Europe are from countries NOT being bombed in any way by the US. Yes, the US has done some bombing in Syria when Asshat...oops, Assad, used chemical weapons on his own people. But even then, it was precision strikes that had NO civilian casualties.

[Player Twelve]

Do you have a source for this nonsense other than your ass?

- - - Updated - - -



Well ok, if she were to personally murder the president of Germany that would count, too.

Unless my german sucks, it does not require a president nor a king to be murdered.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hochverrat

In der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist der Hochverrat gegen den Bund oder die Länder unter den Staatsschutzdelikten in den §§ 81–83a StGB als Verbrechen geregelt. Die Tat ist ein Unternehmensdelikt, bei dem der Versuch genauso bestraft wird wie die Vollendung. Zudem ist auch die Vorbereitung des Hochverrats (§ 83 StGB) unter Strafe gestellt.

Geschütztes Rechtsgut ist der physische und verfassungsmäßige Bestand der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Bundesländer. Dieser umfasst die staatliche Einheit von Bund und Ländern, deren Gebietsintegrität und die völkerrechtliche Souveränität des Bundes (Bestandshochverrat) gemäß § 81 Abs. 1 StGB:

(1) Wer es unternimmt, mit Gewalt oder durch Drohung mit Gewalt

den Bestand der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu beeinträchtigen oder
die auf dem Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland beruhende verfassungsmäßige Ordnung zu ändern,
wird mit lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe oder mit Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter zehn Jahren bestraft.
(2) In minder schweren Fällen ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr bis zu zehn Jahren.

Für die Gefährdung des Bestandes der Bundesländer in ihrer territorialen Integrität und verfassungsmäßigen Ordnung ist dagegen § 82 Abs. 1 StGB einschlägig:

(1) Wer es unternimmt, mit Gewalt oder durch Drohung mit Gewalt

das Gebiet eines Landes ganz oder zum Teil einem anderen Land der Bundesrepublik Deutschland einzuverleiben oder einen Teil eines Landes von diesem abzutrennen oder
die auf der Verfassung eines Landes beruhende verfassungsmäßige Ordnung zu ändern,
wird mit Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr bis zu zehn Jahren bestraft.
(2) In minder schweren Fällen ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren.

[Deleted]

The only problem is that once democracy erodes, populists become an actual issue. It is fine if populists act as indicators for social issues that non-populists should pick up. However, when populists themselves become too strong, they can be detrimental to the political discourse. Just look at what is happening in the US and in large parts of Europe.
Most people don't like complex issues. They want clear answers. Populists provide these answers, by boiling issues down to insultingly simplistic forms. That shapes the political discussion, if the populist becomes too powerful, since a great many people simply ignore complex truths in favour of simple half-lies.
Just look at the issue discussed here. Merkel's position is that due to the complex situation we face in the EU, we should first hammer out a deal with our closest allies, but is not, in general, opposed to limiting migration. She just seeks that sustainable way that does not create more issues. Seehofer, on the other end, can say "let's just do it. screw those guys", because he personally does not have to fix the issues created by that.
This is no longer Seehofer indicating an issue that Merkel should tackle, this is Seehofer demanding a radical and simplistic solution. And obviously, most people would prefer his solution. Once you 'legitimize' (using the word very loosely here) the populists, they just have the advantage. A complex, unpopular truth can never win against a simple, populist half-truth. That's just how humans are wired.

That's a very valid criticism and i'm sorry to maybe not do your post justice with a long reply, but I agree with most of what you wrote.

This is why I prefer the populist to act as opposition, then it forces a reaction from the state to try and solve the problem at hand, however complex it may be. That way, everyone wins.

[DarkWeb]

Q: "How do we deal with the migrant problem in Europe?"

A1: "Let them in!"

A2: "Kick them out!"

A3: "Stop the US from bombing their countries into smithereens so they no longer have a reason to come to Europe?"

*Q throws A3 out the window*

No but for real, the migrant crisis is entirely the United States fault and European countries should bury them in tariffs until they start taking their fair share of the migrants (100% of them) or stop bombing the middle east.

Even if Syria was a democracy with no war people would still flock to Europe

[Malacrass]

Just look at the issue discussed here. Merkel's position is that due to the complex situation we face in the EU, we should first hammer out a deal with our closest allies, but is not, in general, opposed to limiting migration. She just seeks that sustainable way that does not create more issues. Seehofer, on the other end, can say "let's just do it. screw those guys", because he personally does not have to fix the issues created by that.
This is no longer Seehofer indicating an issue that Merkel should tackle, this is Seehofer demanding a radical and simplistic solution. And obviously, most people would prefer his solution. Once you 'legitimize' (using the word very loosely here) the populists, they just have the advantage. A complex, unpopular truth can never win against a simple, populist half-truth. That's just how humans are wired.

Our "closest allies" are partially or fullblown populist governments. Italy has a far right + far left nutjob coalition, Austria a far right government with a populist chancellor. And Greece? Just waiting for a position of strength to ask for depth cuts. Why do you think Tsipras is suddenly praising Merkel?
These are out closest allies here.

The school of thought is that yes, we need talks. Always. But until we have a tangible agreement we make clear that we can act if we want to, and not bow down to everything because Merkel is the leader of free world and it would be a shame if she wouldn't be anymore. Don't get me wrong, Seehofer's move is 100% due to the Bavarian elections in october, but the idea to act AND talk is not necessarily bad.

[Thelyron]

No, giving people what they need is what should be a prime concern.

"You think you do, but you don't"?

[Elegiac]

"You think you do, but you don't"?

Brexit.

QED.

[Puupi]

"You think you do, but you don't"?

Partly.

But mostly about people just wanting unrealistic shit.

[Ooid]

Wow I didn’t know Germany had so many Nazis still living there.

[ranzino]

Wow I didn’t know Germany had so many Nazis still living there.

how about YOU take all those refugees and earn a golden badge ?

[Realitytrembles]

No, giving people what they need is what should be a prime concern.

How utterly condescending. And totalitarian.

If elected officials don't do as the electorate wishes, they should and must be voted out of office.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It is the sign of a traitor to her own country; she is not Chancellor of the Earth , but of Germany. German interests should be her only concern.

Merkel is a fool whose intransigence will not only doom her politically, but also empower the far right in Germany in response.

[Allenseiei]

People critize tighter borders for certain demographics and call them "racists" because most of them don't feel it in their pockets or in their every day life.
A change in policies might work if they make a way for people who want to acomodate refugees in their homes to do so and let people in taking into account the amount of people who are willing to take care of them in their own homes.

It's understandable what germans are asking for, uncontrolled borders shake a country's economy and as statistics have shown, security of its citizens. If the citizens dislike this and they act upon it through voting, its perfectly acceptable.

[Deleted]

The rebel minister, the lesser know character in the Star Wars universe.

[sam86]

of course, i mean it isn't like ur birth rate is in -ve and u'll probably be wiped out (by ur own non-birth rates) if u don't accept immigrants or anything, and that applies to entire europe not just germany

don't accept immigrants, in few years there will be no european left and 'immigrants' will go to claim land that one had ppl who went to self destruction