Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I was hoping you would say the USA. Can you please give actual specific examples of the USA moving towards authoritarianism?

This should show if you actually do know what authoritarianism is quite easily.

Removed by mod

Where have I not given an answer?

“Completely misguided landlord metaphor”? I’m sorry, do you still not see the direct relevance of that? I very clearly and very slowly explained it to you. Please, explain to me why it is not relevant and is “bad faith”?

“Misinformation about mining and recycling needed for renewables”

What misinformation? You can’t just claim misinformation without ever even responding lol. What is “misinformation” about what I said? Do you think that the materials for solar panels and batteries grow on trees? Where do you think lithium comes from? Aluminium? Where do you think solar panels go when the cost to recycle them is literally higher than the cost to make a new one?

You can’t just go “misinformation!!!” and delete all my comments without even so much as showing or telling why something is supposedly misinformation lol. I mean you can because you are, but that’s weak AF and an abuse of your mod powers.

“Bad faith” doesn’t just mean “things I disagree with”.

Can you please actually provide some evidence for why those are “bad faith” arguments?

I didn’t say you lied, I said you are speculating - which you are.

What you’re now talking about is legally changing the constitution. That is allowed to happen. That’s democracy. If a party gets elected and given that much power via numbers then what reason do you have to say they shouldn’t be allowed to make their democratically elected platform into law?

Look, if a country overwhelmingly want to go full nazi, then democratically that is what should happen. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be consequences for them doing so - like sanctions, tariffs, ending of trade deals, or even a world war - but if it is what the majority of the people want……that is how democracy works. You can’t say you want democracy but then say that the majority of people shouldn’t be allowed to have a say. That in itself is very authoritarian, very dictatorship. “We know better than the majority of people and we will not listen to them and we will dictate what will happen”.

Let’s say that 75% of a country want to legalize slavery for example, and all vote for the party that wants that and they win the election in a landslide the size of which has never been seen before. Do you think that a minority party that got say 5% of the votes should be able to just take power and go against what the overwhelming majority of people voted for? Why? On what grounds? Where do you go from there? You’ve just installed a dictator and thrown out democracy.

I’d love to keep discussing this as it’s interesting, no one is hurling insults, no one is breaking rules, but this is no doubt going to get removed for “bad faith”.

I noticed that you’re just saying I’m arguing in bad faith because you disagree with me and want to use it as a reason to delete my comments.

I’m not arguing in bad faith. You have not shown any evidence of me arguing in bad faith.

Are you going to just keep removing all of my comments that you disagree with and say “bad faith”? Funny that you removed ones where I asked someone if they just want a dictatorship of their preferred party and they literally said “yes” as “bad faith” lol

So which western countries are heading towards authoritarianism?

I asked you to clarify what you meant, and assumed it was about renewables. It wasn’t obvious what you were talking about, hence why I asked :)

Nuclear is cheap compared to literal endless spending on ever increasing numbers of batteries and solar panels and wind turbine blades and transmission lines for eternity. Take your number of 100k years - batteries need to be replaced every 10 years or so due to falling capacity and/or just dropping dead/malfunction. How solar panels are supposed to last 25-30, but are easily damaged by things like hail. Batteries and solar panels require mining of non-renewable, toxic, and non recyclable materials to create. This means enormous, ever increasing amounts of toxic landfill combined with enormous ever increasing mining.

Solar and wind are cheap to roll out (if you don’t include the transmission costs, like the Australian government refuse to), but they’re incredibly inefficient (less than 30% efficient at their absolute best) and unreliable (solar doesn’t work for a minimum of 8 hours a day, often 24 hours a day). They require consumables in a different way - every time they need replacement. Nuclear works at 100% capacity 24/7.

If you didn’t mean renewables then cool, let’s leave that one there. What did you mean then? Remember, I asked you what you meant since you were vague and non specific.

Ok so speculation on your part there about how citizenship would be revoked. Cool story.

Fun side note: if the constitution does not allow it then they can’t and won’t do it. As for the asylum one, they’re not suggesting banning asylum.

who want citizenship revoked

For who and for what? Going to have to be more specific if you want me to respond.

The “fuck up the environment” one is - without knowing their policy - I’m guessing about “renewables”?

Here in Australia more and more people are realising that our “100% renewables” power plan is a complete shit show and is anything but “renewable” and will cause greater long term damage. More and more people want nuclear because it’s cheaper, cleaner, and doesn’t require the endless resources and space that “renewables” do. Our power prices have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the world the more we shift to “renewables”. Our government still refuses to tell us how much the total projected cost of the “renewables” plan is, with some estimates putting it in the trillions of dollars realm.

Was in the process of editing answers/questions down the bottom of my post.

Immigration can and should be cut off at times. Here in Australia we have a massive housing crisis and cost of living crisis. We currently have all time high levels of immigration at a time when we have a housing crisis with homelessness skyrocketing. We literally cannot house the people we have, and most of the population can’t afford to buy a house because the demand far outstrips the supply which has caused house pricing to explode.

The absolute best thing we could do at the moment is to cut immigration until we can get the housing crisis under control. What good does importing another million people a year do when we have nowhere to put them?

“Illegal immigrants” is not “derogatory”, it is a factual description. They broke the law to enter the country. They are in the country illegally. They are an immigrant. Illegal immigrant. This is how language works.

Bad faith? Having people apply for asylum before entering a country is a bad faith argument? Think about what is being proposed. Someone wants to get asylum in Germany. Before entering Germany they apply for asylum. They could do that from their home in the country they’re wanting asylum from. They could do it from any other country. The AfD is just saying “don’t enter our country illegally and then ask if you can come in - ask first”, which is fair because once they’re in the country there are people who will say they should not be allowed to be deported - like you. You’re making up the existence of these “offshore internment camps” in this situation.

Is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoos

No, it’s the one where a bunch of room temperature IQ people thought that the annotations describing what each of the tattoos stood for were being presented as tattoos.

The US government wants to deport people who are in the country illegally. That’s the “profile”. Not a single citizen has been deported so far. Deportations are a great tool for deporting illegal immigrants. This isn’t really debatable.

Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic

Ok so you just didn’t get the point. I’ll explain it again:

Someone entering my house without being invited in is illegal entry. I offer a way for people to enter my house legally, a rental application. When someone applies to rent my house, I don’t let them move in while I review their application, because then if I chose not to accept their application they’re already in my house and I have to jump through all sorts of legal issues to get them out. Out of a place that they should not be. Instead what I do is review their application while they live in their current house, and if successful I let them move in.

Does that help?

All of your “they want to do x/y/z because they’re too woke” stuff - what actually are their policies? Do you mean that they want to defund government funded media who push certain ideologies and implement certain policies like DEI?

The “remove the outmoded political party system” seems like something most of the far left want to do doesn’t it?

Ok so you basically want unregulated immigration and think that any attempts to stop it is nazi-adjacent, or just straight up nazi behaviour.

people aren’t “illegal”

Way to argue in bad faith. People can be “illegal immigrants” which is what is being discussed. Illegal immigrants are immigrants that entered the country illegally. They broke the law. No one is saying a person is illegal. Thats the very definition of a bad faith argument, intentionally cherry picking words out of context and acting like they mean something that they don’t so you can attack them and/or the poster.

Making a process for asylum seekers to get approval to enter the country before entering the country isn’t “removing rights of asylum seekers for due process” in any way. It’s giving them due process to enter the country rather than letting them in and then having to go through endless processes to remove them if they’re not granted asylum. It makes sense. It’s the smart thing to do. It fixes many issues with the current system. What rights do you think it takes away?

deporting father of 3 with no priors

You mean the MS-13 gang member who has lived in the country illegally for 13 years without any attempt to become a legal citizen, who had twice been ordered to be deported back to his home country, where he now is? That “Maryland father”? “No priors” is also a lie. He broke the law, self admittedly, entering the country illegally. He didn’t show up to multiple court cases despite admitting he knew about them.

Like I said, your position is that all immigration should be legal. Thats a position alright, but it’s a very unpopular one that only the furthest of the far left advocate for. It’s no wonder why you claim that a party who want to control immigration are Nazis and should be banned from becoming too popular.

Cool story

So you didn’t get the point that was being made, or you have no way to refute it?

So their policy documents etc are lies? Based on what? Verifiable proof would be great. What is being misrepresented in there exactly?

Can you provide some of these quotes that go against their policies and confirm what you’re saying they want to do?

Ok so you do mean illegal immigrants. Can someone apply for asylum in Germany without illegally entering the country? A quick google shows that that is what the AfD are proposing - asylum seekers apply before entering the country. Germany isn’t an island so that shouldn’t be too difficult, and seems reasonable. What is the issue with only people who are granted asylum being allowed in? Believe it or not, letting everyone in and then choosing who to deport leads to large number of people who are not granted asylum just staying illegally, as the current situation in the USA shows. They try to deport illegals who have lived there for 13+ years without even attempting to get asylum, and everyone blows up at them saying they should just leave them alone.

If someone wants to rent my property I don’t let them stay in it while I process their application.

Removed by mod

You’re misrepresenting their policies.

https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf

Show me in there which policies you’re referring to please?

By mass deportation of foreigners do you mean illegal immigrants?

It seems like you’re fear mongering against the AfD based on things you think they might do simply because you believe they’re the second coming of the Nazis.

And again so you don’t take this the wrong way - if people in here were arguing for a “progressive” party to be taken off the ballot I’d be arguing against that and saying that they’re the ones being authoritarian fascists.

Removed by mod