|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 01 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:10 Reaps wrote:
So everyone is fine with Merkel voting no for same sex marriage? Did i miss something. My understanding is that she voted no herself, but freed up her party members to vote how they wished. Politicians are not zero sum equations, so the good comes with the bad. She is willing to do something with enough political pressure, even if she doesn't agree with it herself. Here is an interesting question: do you think she would have voted no if she was the deciding vote(and could pass it to another party member)?
As i posted above, she added her personal thoughts as to why she voted no, she didn't have to do this but its clear how she thinks about the issue.
As to your question, i don't know but it doesn't look great.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On July 01 2017 01:18 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Reaps wrote:
So everyone is fine with Merkel voting no for same sex marriage? Did i miss something. A symbolic vote for the religious folk while knowing that it will pass anyway. It shouldn't be needed but such is the game of politics. Also one can argue that she practically voted in favor by making it a 'free vote' knowing that most would vote 'yes' rather then the party vote of 'no'. She said she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-same-sex-marriage-vote-germany-legalisation-lgbt-rights-christian-democrat-man-woman-a7815846.htmlShow nested quote +Angela Merkel has voted against same-sex marriage in Germany because she believes that “marriage is between a man and woman”. If any other leader/party said this there would be outrage even on this very forum (and rightly so). As usual people aren't able to critise politicians they support. Politics is becoming so tribal its scary.
She is the leader of the Christian conservative party in Germany. I feel like people need to be reminded of that periodically. There is no outage because her voting against it is what everyone expected.
|
I guess what's annoying is that she's usually an analytical person but on this issue her position is essentially "seeing two dudes kiss makes me feel bad in my tummy". Some vague intuition or a social taboo aren't sufficient to discriminate legally, and she ought to know better.
In the absence of a real argument it would only be consistent for her to vote for gay marriage even if she feels insecure about it. It's actually not typical of her form of Conservatism at all to prolong old traditions that only exists for sentimental reasons.
|
On July 01 2017 01:29 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Reaps wrote:
So everyone is fine with Merkel voting no for same sex marriage? Did i miss something. My understanding is that she voted no herself, but freed up her party members to vote how they wished. Politicians are not zero sum equations, so the good comes with the bad. She is willing to do something with enough political pressure, even if she doesn't agree with it herself. Here is an interesting question: do you think she would have voted no if she was the deciding vote(and could pass it to another party member)? As i posted above, she added her personal thoughts as to why she voted no, she didn't have to do this but its clear how she thinks about the issue. As to your question, i don't know but it doesn't look great.
Here is how I see it.
She could have forced a party line 'no' vote, which I assume would have seen it fail.
She didn't, ergo she allowed the law to pass despite her personal feelings because of overwhelming public support.
Imo that's a good thing for a politician to be able to do. Know when your personal feelings should not stand in the way of the people's will.
Yes, it would be better if she didn't think that marriage should be restricted to a man and a women but shit is what it is.
Unlike for example certain US governors who desperately try to block same sex marriage at least Merkel knows when to step aside.
|
Germany3128 Posts
Personally I think this was politically and strategically genius by here. She freed up her party members to vote what they want, knowing for sure that it will get through, yet she is dependant on the CSU in Baveria (who are way more conservative) and shows them: look I still don't think this is right. She appeased the conservative basis and the other demographic is happy anyway.
It also screams Democracy. "I don't agree with it, yet I let it get through because most people want it".Will she lose some votes for it? Probably, but not to the left - but to the right. Yet she singlehandedly deleted the SPD's and Greens biggest campaign promise from the daily political agenda for the next election, before we're going into the hot phase of the election.
I dislike Merkel but anyone thinking this was less about politics and more about her actual beliefs (of which I actually don't know what they are anymore) I think may be a bit naive.
|
On July 01 2017 01:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:29 Reaps wrote:On July 01 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:On July 01 2017 01:10 Reaps wrote:
So everyone is fine with Merkel voting no for same sex marriage? Did i miss something. My understanding is that she voted no herself, but freed up her party members to vote how they wished. Politicians are not zero sum equations, so the good comes with the bad. She is willing to do something with enough political pressure, even if she doesn't agree with it herself. Here is an interesting question: do you think she would have voted no if she was the deciding vote(and could pass it to another party member)? As i posted above, she added her personal thoughts as to why she voted no, she didn't have to do this but its clear how she thinks about the issue. As to your question, i don't know but it doesn't look great. Here is how I see it. She could have forced a party line 'no' vote, which I assume would have seen it fail. She didn't, ergo she allowed the law to pass despite her personal feelings because of overwhelming public support. Imo that's a good thing for a politician to be able to do. Know when your personal feelings should not stand in the way of the people's will. Yes, it would be better if she didn't think that marriage should be restricted to a man and a women but shit is what it is. Unlike for example certain US governors who desperately try to block same sex marriage at least Merkel knows when to step aside.
In fact, she couldn't stop it.
SPD+Green+Left alone had enough votes to make it pass.
And especially Greens pushed for exactly this vote anyway.
But her saying that her own fraction members can vote by their own feeling now called up the SPD to push that vote against the coalition agreement  .
|
Collective delirium and drug consumption in Macronie:
+ Show Spoiler +
Not a bad choice anyway; Hermès is known as the god of thieves!
|
On July 01 2017 01:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I guess what's annoying is that she's usually an analytical person but on this issue her position is essentially "seeing two dudes kiss makes me feel bad in my tummy". Some vague intuition or a social taboo aren't sufficient to discriminate legally, and she ought to know better.
In the absence of a real argument it would only be consistent for her to vote for gay marriage even if she feels insecure about it. It's actually not typical of her form of Conservatism at all to prolong old traditions that only exists for sentimental reasons.
If I'm informed correctly she stated in an interview that a lesbian couple showed her the 8 adopted kids and how lovingly they care for them.
That changed her mind, supposedly.
What the fucking fuck is that please? A single fucking personal experience overthrows a blockade she maintained over years and years. God fucking awful reasoning for such an important question. Also basically a fuck you to everyone lobbying by providing good arguments for it in the past. "hahaha I don't give a shit about your point but hey this woman seems nice. I guess everyone gay must be nice too. Mmmh they then should have the rights, I guess."
I honestly did not expect her to vote no but wasn't suprised that much in the end. Just her sailing with the wind again, trying to adhere to her christian beliefs and reap the positive wave of marriage for everyone while opposing it.
|
Actually, on a tactical/strategical level, I think Merkel has made a brilliant move, irrespective of what you think about gay marriage itself. I'm kinda surprised I havent read about it in any news article so far, even though I have only read a very small number. I will explain it in a few minutes.
Ok so here is how I see it: In september we have a general election. Currently, opinion polling looks about as follows:
CDU/CSU:~ 38-40% (Merkels party. various shades of coservatism, even though compared to conservatives in other countries, she might appear almost left of center)
SPD:~23-25% (social democrats, but their former Schröder government is most famous for its reforms at the expense of workers, from which the party still suffers. Currently small partner in a coalition government with the CDU)
Left: ~9% (strong in the east, torn between distancing themselves from the SPD while needing it if they ever want to be part of the government)
Greens: ~8% (Have successfully made germany leave nuclear energy behind. Now they struggle to attract voters with other topics. May or may not decide to form with any other party, though they usually prefer to work with the SPD)
FPD: ~9% (liberal party. I dont like them. Their version of individual people tends to benefit richer people more)
AfD: ~7% (germanys version of the UKIP, FN, or republicans. Pariahs to the other parties)
Typically, a government needs consist of several parties so that they represent a majority of voters. Thus, a typical question before (and after) elections is the question of possible coalitions (i.e. different parties working together to make a government).
Now, a few days back, the greens have rather surprisingly made the decision that would not enter any government except under the condition to introduce gay marriage. The FDP was reported to have immediately made the same decision (if out of conviction or fear of losing voters to the greens is up to you to judge). The CDU/CSU is largely against gay marriage, and it is a very controversial topic among them.
Now imagine we get the current opinion polls as a result after the election. You are Angela Merkel. How do you form a government? How do your options look:
-FDP: Your natural partner. However, a majority for CDU/CSU/FDP is not sure as of now. Even if there were a majority, if the FDP really insist on gay marriage (I could imagine they might drop it in exchange for power, but evem I consider this to be quite unlikely. Yeah I really dont like them). So Merkel would have to convince her own party of gay marriage, which I think may not work. In this case, we essentially have a german version of "hung parliament" because maths says no options for coalition have a majority.
-Greens: Same situation as with FDP, and worse because of more different political positions and personal prejudices.
-Left or AfD: Just no.
-SPD the only option then. But noone on either really likes this "grand coalition". At least it would have a guaranteed majority. But usually neither party really gets to do much of the reforms they hope for, as they are often too contrary to the views of the partner. Additionally, the SPD also supports gay marriages (though it doesnt care as much as the greens or the FDP). There is a chance they might also insist on gay marriage, and then Merkel is in real trouble with her party. Even if the SPD does not insist, they will no that Merkel has no other option besides them, and could make Merkel pay a very heavy price to enter a government without getting gay marriage.
So it appears that gay marriage would be a major problem for Merkel after the election. Now that the decision has been made, it works out in Merkels favor in many ways:
-Most obvious (if my analysis was correct), Merkel will once again have the FDP, SPD and the greens as potential partners after the election. Or at least none of the three will be immediately excluded as an option, giving Merkel a much better bargaining position.
-She has eliminated a major point of controvery with their party. I think it was more or less inevitable that gay marriage would come sooner or later, and now that is here, the majority of the CDU/CSU will not like it, but at least her party will not be vulnerable on this topic for years to come. And most importantly, there is no more risk that Merkels party will deny her joining a government based on the possible introduction of gay marriage.
-Given that a large majority of germans (and a minority, but still large number of CDU supporters) supports gay marriage, it would have a great rally point for campaigning (for the FDP/greens, possibly SPD). Basically, if gay marriage would become a major topic in the build-up for the election, Merkel could not gain anything from it while having much to lose.
-She has allowed her party MPs to vote freely based on their conscience. Typically, this s seen as a respectable action and draws favorable feedback from the public. And it cost her almost nothing. Sure, there are many disgruntled voices with her party, but the reality is that her party almost completely depends on her. The alternative would have been a guaranteed loss in the vote for gay marriage, which would have been a disaster.
|
![[image loading]](https://iadsb.tmgrup.com.tr/e1fbe1/645/344/0/105/800/533?u=https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/2017/07/01/world-leaders-pay-homage-to-late-german-chancellor-helmut-kohl-at-the-eu-parliament-1498905501033.jpg)
EU's first 'superstate funeral'?
|
No. People are showing a great man respect. Don't be a twat.
|
I don't mean any disrespect to Kohl, just pointing out the extremely symbolic gesture of draping an EU flag over the coffin and bringing it to parliament.
|
If you are familiar with his body of work it is entirely appropriate. EU honors him like they should. And frankly I'm convinced he would have been pleased.
|
On July 02 2017 00:12 bardtown wrote:
I don't mean any disrespect to Kohl, just pointing out the extremely symbolic gesture of draping an EU flag over the coffin and bringing it to parliament.
Do you actually know who Kohl is and what he did, or do you just want to be a dick in general?
She is the leader of the Christian conservative party in Germany. I feel like people need to be reminded of that periodically. There is no outage because her voting against it is what everyone expected.
Not just that. Her Father is actually a pastor. Still is.
She freed up her party to vote by conscience, while standing to her beliefs. I have no problem with that. The problem would've been if she prevented the vote because SHE believes it shouldn't be allowed.
This is actually the most integrity i've seen a politician show in a decade. Still don't like her, but that's something that has to be respected even if you don't like her.
|
Jesus. Stop looking for excuses to be offended. I neither said nor implied that he wouldn't approve.
|
Eh. While I got a decent chuckle out of that jab, I think it was kind of in bad taste to use a genuine funeral for a joke like that.
|
On July 02 2017 00:48 bardtown wrote:
Jesus. Stop looking for excuses to be offended. I neither said nor implied that he wouldn't approve.
I'm not looking for excuses. Your stance on EU is pretty well known here. You post that picture and a one-liner to jab at EU. You are well within your rights to do so, but don't get pissy when someone calls you a twat for being a twat.
|
I really would have wanted to know what went through Merkel's head during the funeral given the backstory between her and Kohl. Reminded me of the New Yorker profile of her
Feldmeyer suggested that, instead of doing an interview, she publish an opinion piece. Five minutes later, a fax came through, and Feldmeyer read it with astonishment. Merkel, a relatively new figure in the C.D.U., was calling for the Party to break with its longtime leader. “The Party must learn to walk now and dare to engage in future battles with its political opponents without its old warhorse, as Kohl has often enjoyed calling himself,” Merkel wrote. “We who now have responsibility for the Party, and not so much Helmut Kohl, will decide how to approach the new era.” She published the piece without warning the tainted Schäuble, the Party chairman. In a gesture that mixed Protestant righteousness with ruthlessness, Kohl’s Mädchen was cutting herself off from her political father and gambling her career in a naked bid to supplant him. She succeeded. Within a few months, Merkel had been elected Party chairman. Kohl receded into history. “She put the knife in his back—and turned it twice,” Feldmeyer said. That was the moment when many Germans first became aware of Angela Merkel.
Years later, Michael Naumann sat next to Kohl at a dinner, and asked him, “Herr Kohl, what exactly does she want?”
“Power,” Kohl said, tersely. He told another friend that championing young Merkel had been the biggest mistake of his life. “I brought my killer,” Kohl said. “I put the snake on my arm.”
Worthwhile read if you've got some time
|
On July 01 2017 23:05 bardtown wrote:+ Show Spoiler +EU's first 'superstate funeral'? This is in really bad taste.
|
On July 02 2017 00:48 bardtown wrote:
Jesus. Stop looking for excuses to be offended. I neither said nor implied that he wouldn't approve.
Would be dumb af anyway considering that he asked for something like that, rather than a german Staatsakt. What you tried was a cheap jab trying to score some "you show em" points with the other "eu is literally hitler" people. Ghostcom was correct, don't be a twat. If it genuinely was a joke (and i don't believe that), it backfired massively. Again, don't be a twat, if everyone tells you that this is bad taste, then it most likely comes off as bad taste and has nothing to do with looking for excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
