friendlymessage

Weil die Reform auch ermöglicht, die Rüstungsausgaben zu erhöhen und die Linke das damit verhindern kann

Wieso sollte wegen der Wahlrechtsreform das Direktmandat an jemanden anderen gehen?

Bin mir noch nicht sicher, ob ich das gut finden soll. Wenn am Ende eine Reform der Schuldenbremse an der Sperrminorität von AfD und der Linken scheitert, haben wir den selben Stillstand wie bei der Ampel nochmals für 4 Jahre und ziemliche Probleme die Ukraine angemessen zu unterstützen. Wenn dagegen die Linke ihre Zustimmung an nem höheren Mindestlohn und ner Milliardärsteuer festmacht und sich damit durchsetzt, fänd ich's dufte.

Sie versuchen's, anscheinend wollen sie klagen wg. der vielen Auslandsdeutschen die nicht abstimmen konnten. Glaube aber kaum, dass das erfolgreich sein wird. Sie müssten erstmal nachweisen, dass sie speziell davon negativ betroffen sind.

Close but no. As I said, you're not actually qualified to discuss with the adults especially if you can't see how this is relevant here.

Oh my god, do you seriously think you can analyse laws and case law of a different country in a different language if we're just gonna link the articles?

Well, if you like you can read §111 Strafgesetzbuch but in German legalese and not in a google translated version please. To see how this law is interpreted, you could read this relevant court decision: https://openjur.de/u/2271522.html

The court opinion is interesting, because the posters were lawful because they wrote "Nazis töten." and not "Nazis töten!" which leads to the posters not being actionable. Do you see the difference? Do you understand the fine line the party "Die Partei" walked here?

There's a difference of fighting back including killing to defeat an enemy or denying someone the basic right to life.

The first means you fight back until you defeat the enemy, the second one means after you defeat them you round them up and put them in camps to exterminate them.

It also means it limits your actions to those targets who actually hold power and not just anyone who has a Trump / Vance flag in their garden.

I don't think the paradox of tolerance works here. Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. It doesn't say kill them, it says don't tolerate them. Meaning exclude these topics from public discourse or make basic right non-negotiable and unalterable. One of these basic rights being the right to life. Ironically, by calling into question such a basic right, you are actually the intolerant one Popper means.

Of course, this only applies as long as we are still in a tolerant society. A better argument at the moment especially in the US would be the right to resist.

You're not gonna see this as you blocked feddit.org, also geh dahin wo der Pfeffer wächst!

For everyone else:

Saying "nazi lives don't matter" isn't even "dehumanizing".

Doubtful from a legal point of view

Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.

Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.

Basically everyone on feddit.org agrees with this, so this whole rambling doesn't make any sense. Two things can be true at the same time.

I guess that's a no

Absolut. Umgedreht ist es für Oppositionsparteien auch immer einfach tolle Sachen zu fordern, sie müssen sie weder umsetzen noch finanzieren und müssen nicht mal wirklich dahinter stehen, daher sie sowieso wissen dass die Abstimmung nicht durchgeht.

Auf der anderen Seite sind Wahlprogramme auch nicht den Speicherplatz wert auf denen sie gespeichert werden. Und welche Position in Koalitionsverhandlungen tatsächlich nur Verhandlungsmasse vs. Wichtiger Kernpunkt ist, kriegt man auch nicht so einfach raus. Alles schwierig.