41–50 of 155 posts
If the future German Chancellor is here, here's my proposal for your new campaign: "We choose to build one million affordable apartments in four years, not because it's easy but because it's hard". It may not solve all of Germany's problems but at least you'll energize the construction sector, alleviate the housing crisis, learn how to finish a construction project on time and you'll have to remove some bureaucracy t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Trump's followers raid the capitol last time (with his approval)? Seems unstable from the outside
One of them was shot and more than 600 were sent to prison. Seems stable enough to me.
So, destabilized democracies seems to be the theme of the early 21st century: the UK (Brexit), the US (twice) and now rumbles from Germany. Great
This is not destabilizing this democracy. The FDP has done that same thing before - twice! In 1966 and 1982. Abandoning a non-functioning government and calling new elections is part of democracies. Just ask the Italians (68 governments in 76 years), or recently the French and the Brits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Trump's followers raid the capitol last time (with his approval)? Seems unstable from the outside
One of them was shot and more than 600 were sent to prison. Seems stable enough to me.
> Starting at 11:58, from behind a bulletproof shield, President Trump gave a speech, declaring that he would "never concede" the election, criticizing the media, and calling for Pence to overturn the election results.
Just reading about the whole thing again on Wikipedia is appalling beyond belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is unstable about the US?
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Trump's followers raid the capitol last time (with his approval)? Seems unstable from the outside
If the future German Chancellor is here, here's my proposal for your new campaign: "We choose to build one million affordable apartments in four years, not because it's easy but because it's hard". It may not solve all of Germany's problems but at least you'll energize the construction sector, alleviate the housing crisis, learn how to finish a construction project on time and you'll have to remove some bureaucracy t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same in the US. Especially in the party that now lost. Maybe believing in some equality fairyland where everything is fair and equal doesn’t work. Doesn’t work for the US and doesn’t work for Germany. You need to let crazy people do crazy things (within the law of course). Many inventors were “crazy” at the time including Einstein, Turing and DaVinci to name a few. Maybe in 50 years we will talk about the government…
To the people downvoting me again. Please come with arguments instead of just clicking the “I disagree” button. I’ll happily be proven wrong but I need someone to do it. Just clicking “I disagree” doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Thank you.
Your response included the statement: "The left wants to chemically castrate gay teenagers and ban single-sex gay spaces." - I don't think that's a response made to the strongest plausible interpretation of mschuster91's post.
If the future German Chancellor is here, here's my proposal for your new campaign: "We choose to build one million affordable apartments in four years, not because it's easy but because it's hard". It may not solve all of Germany's problems but at least you'll energize the construction sector, alleviate the housing crisis, learn how to finish a construction project on time and you'll have to remove some bureaucracy t…
I've been living in Germany for a while now and have been trying to understand German politics in that time, including this whole concept of coalition governments and the crisis the Ampel is facing. Due to the latter, I came across this: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-could-face-snap-election/a-704...
In this article are statements such as (emphasis mine):
> Brandt called for a vote of confidence in the Bundestag with the aim of losing it, so that his chancellorship could be reconfirmed by voters in fresh elections.
> [Kohl] called for a vote of confidence, which he, too, deliberately lost on December 17, 1982.
> Schröder called for a vote of confidence, which he deliberately lost on July 1, 2005.
I just can't wrap my head around these in so many levels. The easier of these questions would be, how can a chancellor deliberately lose a vote of confidence? What makes the action deliberate exactly?
Brandt is a more complicated case to the point where I am, honestly, having a hard time putting my bewilderment into words. I'll try nonetheless: How can a chancellor expect voters in fresh elections to bolster their chancellorship, just right after losing a vote of confidence? I can only interpret this as some kind of political flex, basically telling the Bundestag that "I may not have your confidence but I still have mandate from the people".
(If it is, then, well, weird flex but ok, as we used to say a few years ago. It is a reason after all, even if I find it a bit absurd.)
Perhaps what adds to my confusion is, in Kohl's section we read: "Because Kohl's coalition of the CDU/CSU and FDP came to power through a vote of no confidence and not a general election, Kohl wished for additional legitimacy through a general election" which to me implies that Brandt's strategy would not have consolidated his position as strongly; indeed, the article notes his maneuver was fiercely criticized at the time.
I know I'm an idiot when it comes to German politics so I'd be glad if someone can make sense of my bewilderment. I know there is a lot of subtlety and context I am missing here and I'm sure I'm confusing one thing for another. But I strongly feel like this would go a long way to helping me understand the current machinations of the Ampel.
I have a tangential question, especially to the native Germans in this thread. I've been living in Germany for a while now and have been trying to understand German politics in that time, including this whole concept of coalition governments and the crisis the Ampel is facing. Due to the latter, I came across this: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-could-face-snap-election/a-704... In this article are statements such as…
Just openly telling your coalition to not vote for you.
> How can a chancellor expect voters in fresh elections to bolster their chancellorship, just right after losing a vote of confidence?
I don't think saying "I came into power, but I'am not sure, if you really want me so please vote for me." will have negative effects on your election results.
> I can only interpret this as some kind of political flex, basically telling the Bundestag that "I may not have your confidence but I still have mandate from the people".
The chancellor gives up on forming the government, but it's the parliament's to vote for a new election.