German Federal Election 23rd February 2025

[HisMajestyBOB]

Feels like everyone has just given up, if you can't beat them, join them.

Where have all the FDRs and Churchills gone?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Feels like everyone has just given up, if you can't beat them, join them.

Where have all the FDRs and Churchills gone?

They've been canceled by the progs

[Valmy]

Feels like everyone has just given up, if you can't beat them, join them.

I do think the Conservatives are correct to some extent. Some of the policies of the extreme right must be co-opted in order to weaken their voter base. As I said that seemed to work out in Denmark.

[Valmy]

Feels like everyone has just given up, if you can't beat them, join them.

Where have all the FDRs and Churchills gone?

They've been canceled by the progs

Maybe the progs are far more powerful in Europe than here, but canceling never really worked against anybody of any significance. All it usually did was bully minor figures, usually other progressive ones.

[HisMajestyBOB]

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-election-flood-social-media-x-russia-bots-kremlin-operation-false-news/

Putin's disinformation networks flood social media in bid to skew German election

A Kremlin-backed campaign is trying to influence voters ahead of Feb. 23 poll, according to government report obtained by POLITICO.

Russia delenda est 

[Threviel]

I once looked at poll data in Sweden. For as far back as polling data exists, the early 90ies, there's been an overwhelming opposition to generous immigration policies. Something like 50+ % against, 25-% for.

It has very very slowly been evening out and last I looked it was something like 45% against and 25 or so for.

If, at any time, there'd have been a referendum on it then Swedish borders would, in all certainty, have closed up.

Until '14 it wasn't a very important question, but since then it's been growing more and more important and it's really no wonder that the established parties are forced to revise their immigration policies. If only the fascist scum are anti-immigration and a majority (or a very large plurality) is anti-immigration and it's an important question, well, then the fascist scum are going to get votes.

It's not about folding to the fascists, it's that we are democracies and the will of the people ought to count.

[Valmy]

Yeah as much as I hate to say it, I think the only way to combat the far right is to go anti-immigrant.

As I have pointed out, that seems to have worked for Denmark.

I guess one way to think about it is that the immigrants already there would suffer under a far right government. Maybe the best thing you can do for the immigrants already in the country is to limit the number coming in and thus taking away the far right's primary issue.

[Grey Fox]

Immigration would be better accepted if it didn't serve so well to at being a wages suppressing vector for the capital class.

[garbon]

Yeah as much as I hate to say it, I think the only way to combat the far right is to go anti-immigrant.

As I have pointed out, that seems to have worked for Denmark.

I guess one way to think about it is that the immigrants already there would suffer under a far right government. Maybe the best thing you can do for the immigrants already in the country is to limit the number coming in and thus taking away the far right's primary issue.

The only way to "beat" them is to become them?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Immigration would be better accepted if it didn't serve so well to at being a wages suppressing vector for the capital class.

Wouldn't solve the problem of incompatible cultures. Mass migration of people that hate our culture and society doesn't work

[Threviel]

It's also unfair I think, to frame anti-immigration as racism. If Swedes were racists the fascist parties would have become big in the 80ies and 90ies. They didn't become big until immigration became a financial issue.

Sweden has received something like a million refugees/poor immigrants in a population of 8 million. At the same time something like a million non-refugees/poor have moved to Sweden from all over the world. 

Every refugee, for every year for the rest of their life costs something like $10.000 a year, a million of them costs $10.000.000.000 a year. Say that they live for 50 years or so in Sweden, that's $500.000.000.000 in total.

It's not a matter of racism, it's absolutely gigantic resources that could have been spent on healthcare, schools, law enforcement, lower taxes or whatever that instead is spent on foreigners that the majority did not want here in the first place.

That the fascist scum is not a majority party is a testament to the non-racism and general kind heartedness of the vast majority of the population.

[Jacob]

The only way to "beat" them is to become them?

If the choices are:

1) Give up on the rule of law and give up on democracy to embrace bigotry dialled up to 8 or 9; and

2) Maintain the rule of law and our democracy, and accept bigotry dialled up to 5;

Then I can see the logic in opting for 2), even if my values are for bigotry to be dialled down to 0. Even more so if option 2) also comes with better policies on the environment, for workers, international relations, education, the economy, consumer protection, and so on.

That said, it's probably easier to manage in a proportional representation environment than in a first past the post one.

If there's a rise in bigotry among the population - or of non-bigoted concerns that can be leveraged by bigots - to such a degree that it drives politics in a democracies, I'd rather that be incorporated and dealt with democratically than that it becomes a tool for Fascists to overthrow democracy.

It's not ideal, obviously, but if there's a spectrum of possible outcomes I think going for the least bad one is preferable.

Though - of course - maintaining democracy and our rule of law while dialling bigotry down is the best outcome from my perspective.

[garbon]

The only way to "beat" them is to become them?

If the choices are:

1) Give up on the rule of law and give up on democracy to embrace bigotry dialled up to 8 or 9; and

2) Maintain the rule of law and our democracy, and accept bigotry dialled up to 5;

Then I can see the logic in opting for 2), even if my values are for bigotry to be dialled down to 0. Even more so if option 2) also comes with better policies on the environment, for workers, international relations, education, the economy, consumer protection, and so on.

That said, it's probably easier to manage in a proportional representation environment than in a first past the post one.

If there's a rise in bigotry among the population - or of non-bigoted concerns that can be leveraged by bigots - to such a degree that it drives politics in a democracies, I'd rather that be incorporated and dealt with democratically than that it becomes a tool for Fascists to overthrow democracy.

It's not ideal, obviously, but if there's a spectrum of possible outcomes I think going for the least bad one is preferable.

Though - of course - maintaining democracy and our rule of law while dialling bigotry down is the best outcome from my perspective.

I'd suggest one's state is pretty shitty if those are the only two options. Sacrifice some to save the many?

[Valmy]

The only way to "beat" them is to become them?

Not exactly. But this issue is fueling their power, it needs to be removed from them.

I don't think you necessarily have to be far right to limit immigration. And, like I said, there is also the immigrants that are currently inside the country to consider. As political pressure heats up against immigrants, reducing further immigration might be necessary to safeguard their future.

[Valmy]

I'd suggest one's state is pretty shitty if those are the only two options. Sacrifice some to save the many?

Is not being able to immigrate to a country a death sentence? In what way are they being sacrificed?

Sure in a world where the human rights of the individual took precedence, then the right to move anywhere one desired would take precedence over the power of nations. But that isn't the world we live in. I don't think anybody just expects every country to freely accept them moving there.

If the UK had decided not to let you stay there, sure that would have sucked for you, but hardly a crime against humanity surely.