|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On June 25 2016 06:06 Holy_AT wrote:
Can we call them Tiny Britain then instead of Great Britain? :D
It already has a name: Little Britain.
|
Putin is a money grabbing thug, nothing more nothing less .... doesn't mean that he is all evil, but he is damn shady in his dealings ....
|
I mean I don't trust the media either, but I am quite worried about Putin. I wonder if the UK would ally with Russia. The media wanted the UK to remain and enough people didn't accept that so perhaps they would think the media is trying to make Putin look like a bad guy (which I think he is) for whatever reason
|
On June 25 2016 06:06 Deleuze wrote:
I work in higher education in the UK and this is totally fucked. How can we lead the world in the pursuit of knowledge when we've signalled we're closing the doors on our closest global partners.
Its about democracy and opening the UK up to the world instead of an insular European union.
|
On June 25 2016 06:08 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:06 Holy_AT wrote:
Can we call them Tiny Britain then instead of Great Britain? :D It already has a name: Little Britain.
Or Wee Britain (from Arrested Development)
|
On June 25 2016 06:05 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:02 Holy_AT wrote:
The UK? What UK?
it just broke on this very day and it will shatter with Scotland beeing the first to leave.
If that is moderate nationalism, then it seems to be english nationalism not the one of the UK, which ripped appart this very day. I support both, if the majority of England want out of the EU, they should leave. If the majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland want out of the UK and to rejoin the EU, they should also leave. Democracy means that the people do what they think is best for them, even if it doesn't work out. I'm pretty libertarian on this subject matter, let the majority of the people have freedom or whatever they decide, provided it doesn't directly affect others negatively. Then again, what is affected directly by this is a completely different argument that I honestly don't have a part in since I'm not a UK citizen. I support the UK decision on principle
So here is how democracy works in the libertarian sense:
1. Vote on an issue, lose.
2. "What the fuck? It's obvious people here don't share our values!"
3. Demand independence for province/county/city/town/village.
4. Repeat until all semblance of government collapses.
5. "Why won't anyone do anything about these bandits?"
|
On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 04:33 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 04:25 Hryul wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Banaora wrote:
It was the worst decision ever Merkel has taken. There is mass unemployment in southern Europe and instead of incentivising them to come to Germany they take 1-2 Million "refugees" in. A decision that the public in majority does not support.
She should have closed the border immediately and not allow anyone from Hungary or Austria enter Germany. Enforce Dublin rules. The whole story about how Europe would have been destroyed had she acted differently is not true. She wanted these people in Germany for whatever reason. I still don't know why.
About "unaccountable civil servants" - that is completely wrong. They are accountable towards their employer like every civil servant at least in Germany and that is the European Commission for them. I wonder if that is different in Britain. My guess is that it's related to her appearence some weeks before. She was at some public gathering and a girl wanted asylum but got rejected. The girl then started crying and Merkel patted her on the head saying "she did a good job", most likely meaning her performance in presenting her case. Merkel also continued saying that she [M.] doesn't have the power to overturn these kind of decisions and there can't be special cases just b/c someone just met the chancelor. This got the left media in an uproar, describing her as "cold" and "calculating", also not understanding the needs of the little girl. Then some weeks later we got the refugees stranded in cruel land that is hungary and it seems like she saw that as her chance to redeem herself. Furthermore, Peter Altmaier, Kanzleramtschef (= chief of staff of the chancellor/ secretary of state) has some very interesting connections to lobbys like proAsyl, which can be quoted saying It was him, also within his political responsiblity - we don't talk about it much publicly - who opened doors for us Er war es auch, der uns als Staatssekretär – das verkünden wir nicht groß öffentlich – auch Türen geöffnet hat. Very interesting. But it seems a very stupid reason to bring Europe into this kind of catastrophe. The worst thing is that I read recently quite frustrating article that if the political correctness wins in the short term, the harsh actions that will follow in the long term will be similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961 , but now it will not be hundreds of dead people, but tens of thousands ... Well the problem is on the one hand that she seems to be very "cold" and calculating which seems to be true for the most part. But she is also insecure and poll-driven. My prime example is the so called "Energiewende" which took place some time before. The backstory is that Germany was about 50%/50% on the nuclear power plants (afaik). Then the Red/Green Government of Schröder (2002) passed a law which would shutdown some NPP and fix the "long term goal" of shutting down all NPP over a long period of time in a law. Then Merkel came and basically reverted that law in giving the existing NPP a longer run time. I don't know why, but I guess there was heavy lobbying involved. Then Fukushima happened and there were elections upcoming in Baden-Württenberg (BaWü). (and some other state, i forgot). The then CDU-minister-president was a firm beliver in nuclear energy. Polls plummeted and the danger of the "loss" of BaWü was eminent. (BaWü for the CDU was something like Texas for the Reps). Now Merkel enters the picture: She doesn't want to be responsible for a heavy loss and she has to do something. So she does the most radical thing possible: She shuts down all NPP for three months (until well after the elections), then gets some "ethic comittee" which says NPP are evil and shuts down 8 NPP for good, and all the others until 2022. The result: CDU lost BaWü, they now have a Green minister-president who just got reelected. Germany got the second highest costs for electricity in Europe.
Thanks for that. From an outsider's perspective it always does seem like Merkel oscillates between being generally rational and making mind-numbingly fucking stupid decisions. Seems very similar in style (strongly poll-driven politics without a firm platform) to Hillary Clinton in the US.
Really dropped the ball on immigration though. The countries that realized that a solution to this problem doesn't really look pretty managed to minimize the impact on their own economies.
On June 25 2016 06:03 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. I don't know how people really think about him in Ger/Aut, but he is portrayed as a powerhungry megalomaniac. They were angry for his support of Assad and then he took the Krim just after "they"* overthrew evil Yanukovich. There are a lot of cold warriors left in Germany who were all too happy to pick up that fork again. * "They" may or may not include CIA agents and/or political foundations from Germany to promote western democracy.
Very common tactic of the US/NATO leadership to portray the leaders of any country they don't like as the next Hitler. And Russia is definitely geopolitically significant enough for them to put in that kind of effort.
|
On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this.
Annihilation of free press, murders of journalsits, maybe the richest person in the world, nah he's a great guy, sure...
|
On June 25 2016 06:09 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:06 Deleuze wrote:
I work in higher education in the UK and this is totally fucked. How can we lead the world in the pursuit of knowledge when we've signalled we're closing the doors on our closest global partners. Its about democracy and opening the UK up to the world instead of an insular European union.
Yeah the demos is crazy we got that.
No one needs England opening up, when Africa, Asia and the Arab nations are still picking up the shards from its imperial depotism. They should pay reparations to these countries for the next 500 years or so ....
|
On June 25 2016 06:09 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:06 Deleuze wrote:
I work in higher education in the UK and this is totally fucked. How can we lead the world in the pursuit of knowledge when we've signalled we're closing the doors on our closest global partners. Its about democracy and opening the UK up to the world instead of an insular European union.
This populism. The UK has always been open internationally, but it wasn't about the EU it is about total insularity, the chief concern was migration.
|
On June 25 2016 06:11 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:05 plasmidghost wrote:On June 25 2016 06:02 Holy_AT wrote:
The UK? What UK?
it just broke on this very day and it will shatter with Scotland beeing the first to leave.
If that is moderate nationalism, then it seems to be english nationalism not the one of the UK, which ripped appart this very day. I support both, if the majority of England want out of the EU, they should leave. If the majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland want out of the UK and to rejoin the EU, they should also leave. Democracy means that the people do what they think is best for them, even if it doesn't work out. I'm pretty libertarian on this subject matter, let the majority of the people have freedom or whatever they decide, provided it doesn't directly affect others negatively. Then again, what is affected directly by this is a completely different argument that I honestly don't have a part in since I'm not a UK citizen. I support the UK decision on principle So here is how democracy works in the libertarian sense: 1. Vote on an issue, lose. 2. "What the fuck? It's obvious people here don't share our values!" 3. Demand independence for province/county/city/town/village. 4. Repeat until all semblance of government collapses. 5. "Why won't anyone do anything about these bandits?"
6. Let's collaborate in our mutual self interest and remove these bandits
|
On June 25 2016 06:09 plasmidghost wrote:
I mean I don't trust the media either, but I am quite worried about Putin. I wonder if the UK would ally with Russia. The media wanted the UK to remain and enough people didn't accept that so perhaps they would think the media is trying to make Putin look like a bad guy (which I think he is) for whatever reason
What are you worried about? Quite honestly I am far more worried about the US foreign policies than Russia's, especially under the rule of Hillary.
|
On June 25 2016 06:14 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. Annihilation of free press, murders of journalsits, maybe the richest person in the world, nah he's a great guy, sure...
Meanwhile he has 90% support in Russia.
|
On June 25 2016 06:15 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:09 Zaros wrote:On June 25 2016 06:06 Deleuze wrote:
I work in higher education in the UK and this is totally fucked. How can we lead the world in the pursuit of knowledge when we've signalled we're closing the doors on our closest global partners. Its about democracy and opening the UK up to the world instead of an insular European union. This populism. The UK has always been open internationally, but it wasn't about the EU it is about total insularity, the chief concern was migration.
Migration?
Its an effing island there are no 1.000.000 syriens and africas paddeling over the channel, they are the ones who are best of.
And first they play effing empire and subjugate and enslave millions and then they want to wahs their hands clean and talk about whooo migration...
|
On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:On June 25 2016 04:33 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 04:25 Hryul wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Banaora wrote:
It was the worst decision ever Merkel has taken. There is mass unemployment in southern Europe and instead of incentivising them to come to Germany they take 1-2 Million "refugees" in. A decision that the public in majority does not support.
She should have closed the border immediately and not allow anyone from Hungary or Austria enter Germany. Enforce Dublin rules. The whole story about how Europe would have been destroyed had she acted differently is not true. She wanted these people in Germany for whatever reason. I still don't know why.
About "unaccountable civil servants" - that is completely wrong. They are accountable towards their employer like every civil servant at least in Germany and that is the European Commission for them. I wonder if that is different in Britain. My guess is that it's related to her appearence some weeks before. She was at some public gathering and a girl wanted asylum but got rejected. The girl then started crying and Merkel patted her on the head saying "she did a good job", most likely meaning her performance in presenting her case. Merkel also continued saying that she [M.] doesn't have the power to overturn these kind of decisions and there can't be special cases just b/c someone just met the chancelor. This got the left media in an uproar, describing her as "cold" and "calculating", also not understanding the needs of the little girl. Then some weeks later we got the refugees stranded in cruel land that is hungary and it seems like she saw that as her chance to redeem herself. Furthermore, Peter Altmaier, Kanzleramtschef (= chief of staff of the chancellor/ secretary of state) has some very interesting connections to lobbys like proAsyl, which can be quoted saying It was him, also within his political responsiblity - we don't talk about it much publicly - who opened doors for us Er war es auch, der uns als Staatssekretär – das verkünden wir nicht groß öffentlich – auch Türen geöffnet hat. Very interesting. But it seems a very stupid reason to bring Europe into this kind of catastrophe. The worst thing is that I read recently quite frustrating article that if the political correctness wins in the short term, the harsh actions that will follow in the long term will be similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961 , but now it will not be hundreds of dead people, but tens of thousands ... Well the problem is on the one hand that she seems to be very "cold" and calculating which seems to be true for the most part. But she is also insecure and poll-driven. My prime example is the so called "Energiewende" which took place some time before. The backstory is that Germany was about 50%/50% on the nuclear power plants (afaik). Then the Red/Green Government of Schröder (2002) passed a law which would shutdown some NPP and fix the "long term goal" of shutting down all NPP over a long period of time in a law. Then Merkel came and basically reverted that law in giving the existing NPP a longer run time. I don't know why, but I guess there was heavy lobbying involved. Then Fukushima happened and there were elections upcoming in Baden-Württenberg (BaWü). (and some other state, i forgot). The then CDU-minister-president was a firm beliver in nuclear energy. Polls plummeted and the danger of the "loss" of BaWü was eminent. (BaWü for the CDU was something like Texas for the Reps). Now Merkel enters the picture: She doesn't want to be responsible for a heavy loss and she has to do something. So she does the most radical thing possible: She shuts down all NPP for three months (until well after the elections), then gets some "ethic comittee" which says NPP are evil and shuts down 8 NPP for good, and all the others until 2022. The result: CDU lost BaWü, they now have a Green minister-president who just got reelected. Germany got the second highest costs for electricity in Europe. I believe that this was a mistake for several reasons: First, the Greens are simply more convincing in fighting against nuclear power than the party which just prolonged the livespan of all NPP. Second, a heavily industrialized country like Germany can't change their power grid at will. They compensated this with "reneable energy", but e.g. Poland forbade Germany to use their power lines to get the power from the windmills at the coast to the industrial centers in Bavaria and BaWü. Third it shows a lack of leadership. The tsunamy killed 16 000 in one sweep. Radiation killed not a single person up to this day. Germany doesn't get hit by Tsunamies. It doesn't take much to defend this stance. So all in all I do think she is prone to these kind of errors, and she is very "german" in it in the sense that she can't do it halfway. I think she was afraid of the pictures of small kids on Hungarian train stations crying and "just" wanting to get to Germany (Did I mention left media? They all showed the small kids/families arriving in Germany but ignored that a huge majority were young men). But she couldn't say that so she had to take in all "Syrian" refugees. It's also a problem for several other reasons: The Turkey deal didn't really solve the refugee crises. Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin, so it looks like she made a deal with the devil. Merkel said the "German Border" can't be defended, but then Austria closed their borders and Macedonia showed the world that borders can indeed be protected. Greece' crisis is also not solved. A lot of laws passed the parliamant but afaik not a lot of them are worth the paper they are written on. A lot of politicians didn't want to touch the Asylum system. It produces a lot of ugly pictures of people resisting getting flown back to their home countries. So it's no wonder camps like Calais flourished. And nobody seemed to want to enforce deportation (not even Bavaria has a deportation quota > 50%, let alone Berlin). So the contracts with the home countries are poor and not usable. Even the FPÖ doesn't want to do it. They are now in a Coalition in Upper Austria and they simply cut the money for refugees. So the refugees go to Vienna, where they get more money (and the green party is in a coalition with the Reds) And this leads back to the Brexit: There are a lot of unresolved problems within the EU and there are no deep reforms in sight. Merkel has the aforementioned flaws, Hollande seems weak and Cameron doesn't have enough leverage. Italy is quite problematic in itself and no big help with the refugee crisis (I guess someone from Italy can shed more light on the 'clandestini' and their connections to the Mafia). The EU is still a great thing and a lot of their work is going unnoticed. I could simply study in Germany without the need to fill any form (or buy Deutsche Mark), but it doesn't help if they aren't able to solve the big problems.
I know it all ... now, Germany is buying the electricity from our NPPs, now Germany is using our network to transfer the energy from their windPPs to Austria ... She is crazy and the original reason for Brexit. The Brussels bureaucrats are incompetent and do not have the real power. She is strong, she has real power. She is the worst catastrophe, Europe has to face since Hitler and the Soviet leaders.
She still does not understand, it is all happening only because of her "Invitation" to Syrians, but taken by all the poor people in the world.
"Come to us, we will take care of you. We will give you free food, clothes, accommodation, money, ... white women, everything ..."
Who would not come? And she does not understand, SHE must be the one to say: "Stop coming, we are full!"
There is a great old French novel from 1973, which kind of predicted, what is happening in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints
|
On June 25 2016 06:16 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:11 Azarkon wrote:On June 25 2016 06:05 plasmidghost wrote:On June 25 2016 06:02 Holy_AT wrote:
The UK? What UK?
it just broke on this very day and it will shatter with Scotland beeing the first to leave.
If that is moderate nationalism, then it seems to be english nationalism not the one of the UK, which ripped appart this very day. I support both, if the majority of England want out of the EU, they should leave. If the majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland want out of the UK and to rejoin the EU, they should also leave. Democracy means that the people do what they think is best for them, even if it doesn't work out. I'm pretty libertarian on this subject matter, let the majority of the people have freedom or whatever they decide, provided it doesn't directly affect others negatively. Then again, what is affected directly by this is a completely different argument that I honestly don't have a part in since I'm not a UK citizen. I support the UK decision on principle So here is how democracy works in the libertarian sense: 1. Vote on an issue, lose. 2. "What the fuck? It's obvious people here don't share our values!" 3. Demand independence for province/county/city/town/village. 4. Repeat until all semblance of government collapses. 5. "Why won't anyone do anything about these bandits?" 6. Let's collaborate in our mutual self interest and remove these bandits
7. To do that, we need to establish a government.
8. And what's the best form of government, but democracy?
9. Vote on an issue-
|
On June 25 2016 06:11 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:05 plasmidghost wrote:On June 25 2016 06:02 Holy_AT wrote:
The UK? What UK?
it just broke on this very day and it will shatter with Scotland beeing the first to leave.
If that is moderate nationalism, then it seems to be english nationalism not the one of the UK, which ripped appart this very day. I support both, if the majority of England want out of the EU, they should leave. If the majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland want out of the UK and to rejoin the EU, they should also leave. Democracy means that the people do what they think is best for them, even if it doesn't work out. I'm pretty libertarian on this subject matter, let the majority of the people have freedom or whatever they decide, provided it doesn't directly affect others negatively. Then again, what is affected directly by this is a completely different argument that I honestly don't have a part in since I'm not a UK citizen. I support the UK decision on principle So here is how democracy works in the libertarian sense: 1. Vote on an issue, lose. 2. "What the fuck? It's obvious people here don't share our values!" 3. Demand independence for province/county/city/town/village. 4. Repeat until all semblance of government collapses. 5. "Why won't anyone do anything about these bandits?"
aka Eastern Europe, but if it's what the people want, then let them. That freedom, I believe, is the most important one. People will vote for independence because of disagreements or whatever, then ally and unite for security or whatever, then repeat the process ad infinitum.
|
On June 25 2016 06:18 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:14 nojok wrote:On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. Annihilation of free press, murders of journalsits, maybe the richest person in the world, nah he's a great guy, sure... Meanwhile he has 90% support in Russia.
and KJU has 100% support in North Korea
|
On June 25 2016 06:18 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:14 nojok wrote:On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. Annihilation of free press, murders of journalsits, maybe the richest person in the world, nah he's a great guy, sure... Meanwhile he has 90% support in Russia.
Hitler and Stalin had 110% support ...
|
On June 25 2016 06:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:On June 25 2016 04:33 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 04:25 Hryul wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Banaora wrote:
It was the worst decision ever Merkel has taken. There is mass unemployment in southern Europe and instead of incentivising them to come to Germany they take 1-2 Million "refugees" in. A decision that the public in majority does not support.
She should have closed the border immediately and not allow anyone from Hungary or Austria enter Germany. Enforce Dublin rules. The whole story about how Europe would have been destroyed had she acted differently is not true. She wanted these people in Germany for whatever reason. I still don't know why.
About "unaccountable civil servants" - that is completely wrong. They are accountable towards their employer like every civil servant at least in Germany and that is the European Commission for them. I wonder if that is different in Britain. My guess is that it's related to her appearence some weeks before. She was at some public gathering and a girl wanted asylum but got rejected. The girl then started crying and Merkel patted her on the head saying "she did a good job", most likely meaning her performance in presenting her case. Merkel also continued saying that she [M.] doesn't have the power to overturn these kind of decisions and there can't be special cases just b/c someone just met the chancelor. This got the left media in an uproar, describing her as "cold" and "calculating", also not understanding the needs of the little girl. Then some weeks later we got the refugees stranded in cruel land that is hungary and it seems like she saw that as her chance to redeem herself. Furthermore, Peter Altmaier, Kanzleramtschef (= chief of staff of the chancellor/ secretary of state) has some very interesting connections to lobbys like proAsyl, which can be quoted saying It was him, also within his political responsiblity - we don't talk about it much publicly - who opened doors for us Er war es auch, der uns als Staatssekretär – das verkünden wir nicht groß öffentlich – auch Türen geöffnet hat. Very interesting. But it seems a very stupid reason to bring Europe into this kind of catastrophe. The worst thing is that I read recently quite frustrating article that if the political correctness wins in the short term, the harsh actions that will follow in the long term will be similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961 , but now it will not be hundreds of dead people, but tens of thousands ... Well the problem is on the one hand that she seems to be very "cold" and calculating which seems to be true for the most part. But she is also insecure and poll-driven. My prime example is the so called "Energiewende" which took place some time before. The backstory is that Germany was about 50%/50% on the nuclear power plants (afaik). Then the Red/Green Government of Schröder (2002) passed a law which would shutdown some NPP and fix the "long term goal" of shutting down all NPP over a long period of time in a law. Then Merkel came and basically reverted that law in giving the existing NPP a longer run time. I don't know why, but I guess there was heavy lobbying involved. Then Fukushima happened and there were elections upcoming in Baden-Württenberg (BaWü). (and some other state, i forgot). The then CDU-minister-president was a firm beliver in nuclear energy. Polls plummeted and the danger of the "loss" of BaWü was eminent. (BaWü for the CDU was something like Texas for the Reps). Now Merkel enters the picture: She doesn't want to be responsible for a heavy loss and she has to do something. So she does the most radical thing possible: She shuts down all NPP for three months (until well after the elections), then gets some "ethic comittee" which says NPP are evil and shuts down 8 NPP for good, and all the others until 2022. The result: CDU lost BaWü, they now have a Green minister-president who just got reelected. Germany got the second highest costs for electricity in Europe. Thanks for that. From an outsider's perspective it always does seem like Merkel oscillates between being generally rational and making mind-numbingly fucking stupid decisions. Seems very similar in style (strongly poll-driven politics without a firm platform) to Hillary Clinton in the US. Really dropped the ball on immigration though. The countries that realized that a solution to this problem doesn't really look pretty managed to minimize the impact on their own economies. Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:03 Hryul wrote:On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. I don't know how people really think about him in Ger/Aut, but he is portrayed as a powerhungry megalomaniac. They were angry for his support of Assad and then he took the Krim just after "they"* overthrew evil Yanukovich. There are a lot of cold warriors left in Germany who were all too happy to pick up that fork again. * "They" may or may not include CIA agents and/or political foundations from Germany to promote western democracy. Very common tactic of the US/NATO leadership to portray the leaders of any country they don't like as the next Hitler. And Russia is definitely geopolitically significant enough for them to put in that kind of effort.
To me it seems more like she is only getting involved when she know's it crucial for her own or her party's success on a national level. Apart from that she doesn't get involved much in federal politics. Let's call it a pragmatic aproach. I don't really mind. She isn't a super-leader but if you look at the alternatives in Germany, she is the best we can have right now.
And when I say her, I mean the current government with CDU as the leading party. But I doubt that anyone from within the party could challenge her in the upcoming elections, so it's her. The other parties are either too split (SPD) or too inexperienced (Die Grünen) when it comes to leading a country. The other parties can't be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
