Oh, you surely do: The radical elements who will take up arms after a ban of the AfD will be removed… one way or another.
Oh yes, in the end there are only so much of them how many could they are? A couple million people ? Two hundred thousand ? Twenty thousand ? What’s the number that make right the same thing AfD want supposely to do to people who has no right to be in German in the first place, with the difference that AfD removing them simply means sending them home ?
You are an hypocrite: you have no problem using the same methods you protest against simply because this time these methods fit your agenda. And because you have no better argument than violence.
This leaves on the one hand the voters who voted for AfD because they thought they are a valid party - they will move towards other, less radical parties like the CDU or FDP where their beliefs will be watered down.
No, these voters will see what you did and will vote for even more extremist parties. You are a fool if you are thinking that to win these votes you can simply ban a party and then remove (violently ?) who protest this act. Not to consider the fact that these voters vote for AfD exactly because in their opinion CDU e FDP sucks.
On the other hand there are now those who will be put in a state of apathy after a ban - the “Politikverdrossenheit”: Those will still rant online and in their inner circles, but they will have lost most will to engange in politics.
Just to say, Hitler begin his rise chatting in bars, so maybe it is not such good thing.
Oh yes, in the end there are only so much of them how many could they are?
How many who would take up arms? A couple of hundreds, perhaps low thousands… i think police can deal with that.
You are an hypocrite: you have no problem using the same methods you protest against simply because this time these methods fit your agenda. And because you have no better argument than violence.
My agenda is preserving the free and democratic basic order (“Freiheitlich demokratische Grundordnung”) as intended by the creators of the German constitution. If this makes me a hypocrite i can live with that.
No, these voters will see what you did and will vote for even more extremist parties
If the AfD is banned, all direct successors are automatically banned. If there ever forms a new party without direct attachments and it poses the same threat to the constitution it will also be removed.
Oh yes, in the end there are only so much of them how many could they are?
How many who would take up arms?
I think way more than you think. 10/15 years ago you could be right, now I am not that sure.
A couple of hundreds, perhaps low thousands… i think police can deal with that.
Ok, so you are ok with removing low thousands citizen in order to not solve a problem but only to hide it under the rug.
What can be go wrong ?
You are an hypocrite: you have no problem using the same methods you protest against simply because this time these methods fit your agenda. And because you have no better argument than violence.
My agenda is preserving the free and democratic basic order (“Freiheitlich demokratische Grundordnung”) as intended by the creators of the German constitution. If this makes me a hypocrite i can live with that.
I don’t think they meant to use violence anyway. And in your way you don’t presenve anything, you impose it and it is very different.
No, these voters will see what you did and will vote for even more extremist parties
If the AfD is banned, all direct successors are automatically banned. If there ever forms a new party without direct attachments and it poses the same threat to the constitution it will also be removed.
Nope. I don’t really think that an eventual AfD 2.0, which would learn from how and why the AfD was removed, could be automatically banned or that you would be able to ban them without streching the law because the first time you will get people like AfD, or the first generation of Le Pen or guys like Vannacci and Salvini.
The second round will have people more intelligent (like Marine Le Pen which politically speaking is an improvement over the first Le Pen) which would present the same program in a more suitable way.
Honestly, speaking for Italian situation, if there would be some more presentable guy than Vannacci or Salvini who is able to present the same program in a better and less extreme way, it would win without any problem. Same for Le Pen and AfD.
You people still do not understand that AfD, Vannacci, Le Pen, Trump and Right extremism are not a cause, they are an effect. Solve the causes and the problem is gone, cure only the effects and the problems only become worse.
And as I said, you don’t solve the problem simply hiding it under the rug.
Ok, so you are ok with removing low thousands citizen in order to not solve a problem but only to hide it under the rug.
“Removing” only in the sense of prosecuting them for taking up arms against the legitimate government and wanting to overthrow the foundation of our current democracy in Germany. Perhaps some of them may be get hurt in the process… but this is something you can expect if you start a armed revolt.
And if it is needed to cut a bit grass every couple of decades, well, i think the government can arrange that.
Ok, so you are ok with removing low thousands citizen in order to not solve a problem but only to hide it under the rug.
“Removing” only in the sense of prosecuting them for taking up arms against the legitimate government and wanting to overthrow the foundation of our current democracy in Germany. Perhaps some of them may be get hurt in the process… but this is something you can expect if you start a armed revolt.
So what’s the problem of “removing” a few thousands illegal immigrants (for example) in order to avoid that the right far parties have “ammunitions” against the democracy ?
Or, better, what’s the problem with “removing” all the criminals in the cities that make living the cities impossible in certain zones or after a given time, removing even more “ammunitions” to the far right ?
I am pretty sure that people in the cities would love to be able to walk around their city without the fear to be victim of a petty crime.
But again, you are focusing on the effects, not the causes.
And if it is needed to cut a bit grass every couple of decades, well, i think the government can arrange that.
And if it is needed to deport a bit of illegal immigrants every couple of years, well, I think the government can arrange that.
Still sounding good to you ?
So what’s the problem of “removing” a few thousands illegal immigrants (for example) in order to avoid that the right far parties have “ammunitions” against the democracy ?
Removing the ammunition of the enemy by letting yourself getting shot by it is… possible, but foolish.
Removing the ammunition of the enemy by letting yourself getting shot by it is… possible, but foolish.
So, AfD say that there are too many illegal immigrants, people see that it is true (come on, you just need to walk around the city) and they voted them.
You remove the illegal immigrants, AfD what can say now ?
If they say there are still illegal immigrants and people don’t see them (or do not consider this a problem anymore) then they consider AfD good-for-nothings (ok, some will continue to vote for them, idiots are always present)
Result: AfD has not anymore a way to weaponize illegal immigration, you remove an “ammunition” in their propagandistic “weapon”.
Do this for almost every point AfD make and you end up with a society that is better and AfD gone back to the irrelevant group it was when born, like every extremist party.
Some problem would not be completely solved, it is not possible, but you just need to lower them below a threshold that make it bearable and you remove them anyway from the arsenal the far right parties can use in their propaganda.
Let me give you an example of what already happened in the same exact way: back then, in my city (Milan, Italy), every now and then there would be someone at an intersection offering to wash your windshield; people didn’t mind because it happened only occasionally—in fact, they often accepted the service in exchange for a few coins. When these people started showing up at every single intersection (sometimes even more than one person at a single intersection), becoming pushy, and causing minor damage to cars if you refused, people began to see them as an increasingly annoying problem.
Did you know what happened ?
What happened was that, after two elections, the candidate who promised to eliminate the problem was elected—after the other candidates had twice downplayed, if not outright denied, the problem. And he won because he was able to target these people and brand them as a problem (in part they truly were, but for the most part they were just desperate people), and the electorate identified with what he was saying—they had firsthand experience with exactly what the “extremist” candidate was describing.
If the ruling party had addressed the issue, this extremist candidate would never have won: what could he have latch onto? A few persons who occasionally wants to wash your windshield at an intersection? If he had used that as a campaign issue, he would have been ridiculed.
Basically the ruling parties decided to offer the extremist candidates ammunitions, the same errors the ruling parties in most of Europe are doing right now.
Oh yes, in the end there are only so much of them how many could they are? A couple million people ? Two hundred thousand ? Twenty thousand ? What’s the number that make right the same thing AfD want supposely to do to people who has no right to be in German in the first place, with the difference that AfD removing them simply means sending them home ?
You are an hypocrite: you have no problem using the same methods you protest against simply because this time these methods fit your agenda. And because you have no better argument than violence.
No, these voters will see what you did and will vote for even more extremist parties. You are a fool if you are thinking that to win these votes you can simply ban a party and then remove (violently ?) who protest this act. Not to consider the fact that these voters vote for AfD exactly because in their opinion CDU e FDP sucks.
Just to say, Hitler begin his rise chatting in bars, so maybe it is not such good thing.
How many who would take up arms? A couple of hundreds, perhaps low thousands… i think police can deal with that.
My agenda is preserving the free and democratic basic order (“Freiheitlich demokratische Grundordnung”) as intended by the creators of the German constitution. If this makes me a hypocrite i can live with that.
If the AfD is banned, all direct successors are automatically banned. If there ever forms a new party without direct attachments and it poses the same threat to the constitution it will also be removed.
I think way more than you think. 10/15 years ago you could be right, now I am not that sure.
Ok, so you are ok with removing low thousands citizen in order to not solve a problem but only to hide it under the rug.
What can be go wrong ?
I don’t think they meant to use violence anyway. And in your way you don’t presenve anything, you impose it and it is very different.
Nope. I don’t really think that an eventual AfD 2.0, which would learn from how and why the AfD was removed, could be automatically banned or that you would be able to ban them without streching the law because the first time you will get people like AfD, or the first generation of Le Pen or guys like Vannacci and Salvini.
The second round will have people more intelligent (like Marine Le Pen which politically speaking is an improvement over the first Le Pen) which would present the same program in a more suitable way. Honestly, speaking for Italian situation, if there would be some more presentable guy than Vannacci or Salvini who is able to present the same program in a better and less extreme way, it would win without any problem. Same for Le Pen and AfD.
You people still do not understand that AfD, Vannacci, Le Pen, Trump and Right extremism are not a cause, they are an effect. Solve the causes and the problem is gone, cure only the effects and the problems only become worse.
And as I said, you don’t solve the problem simply hiding it under the rug.
“Removing” only in the sense of prosecuting them for taking up arms against the legitimate government and wanting to overthrow the foundation of our current democracy in Germany. Perhaps some of them may be get hurt in the process… but this is something you can expect if you start a armed revolt.
And if it is needed to cut a bit grass every couple of decades, well, i think the government can arrange that.
So what’s the problem of “removing” a few thousands illegal immigrants (for example) in order to avoid that the right far parties have “ammunitions” against the democracy ?
Or, better, what’s the problem with “removing” all the criminals in the cities that make living the cities impossible in certain zones or after a given time, removing even more “ammunitions” to the far right ?
I am pretty sure that people in the cities would love to be able to walk around their city without the fear to be victim of a petty crime.
But again, you are focusing on the effects, not the causes.
And if it is needed to deport a bit of illegal immigrants every couple of years, well, I think the government can arrange that.
Still sounding good to you ?
Removing the ammunition of the enemy by letting yourself getting shot by it is… possible, but foolish.
So, AfD say that there are too many illegal immigrants, people see that it is true (come on, you just need to walk around the city) and they voted them.
You remove the illegal immigrants, AfD what can say now ?
If they say there are still illegal immigrants and people don’t see them (or do not consider this a problem anymore) then they consider AfD good-for-nothings (ok, some will continue to vote for them, idiots are always present) Result: AfD has not anymore a way to weaponize illegal immigration, you remove an “ammunition” in their propagandistic “weapon”.
Do this for almost every point AfD make and you end up with a society that is better and AfD gone back to the irrelevant group it was when born, like every extremist party.
Some problem would not be completely solved, it is not possible, but you just need to lower them below a threshold that make it bearable and you remove them anyway from the arsenal the far right parties can use in their propaganda.
Let me give you an example of what already happened in the same exact way: back then, in my city (Milan, Italy), every now and then there would be someone at an intersection offering to wash your windshield; people didn’t mind because it happened only occasionally—in fact, they often accepted the service in exchange for a few coins. When these people started showing up at every single intersection (sometimes even more than one person at a single intersection), becoming pushy, and causing minor damage to cars if you refused, people began to see them as an increasingly annoying problem.
Did you know what happened ?
What happened was that, after two elections, the candidate who promised to eliminate the problem was elected—after the other candidates had twice downplayed, if not outright denied, the problem. And he won because he was able to target these people and brand them as a problem (in part they truly were, but for the most part they were just desperate people), and the electorate identified with what he was saying—they had firsthand experience with exactly what the “extremist” candidate was describing.
If the ruling party had addressed the issue, this extremist candidate would never have won: what could he have latch onto? A few persons who occasionally wants to wash your windshield at an intersection? If he had used that as a campaign issue, he would have been ridiculed.
Basically the ruling parties decided to offer the extremist candidates ammunitions, the same errors the ruling parties in most of Europe are doing right now.