[MememyselfandIJK]

AFD. I think I mentioned that before. And no, they are not Nazis.

According to Wikipedia, they promote climate change denial, forced conscription, nationalism, traditional values, and have anti-Semitism and anti-gay rights leanings? Care to specify how they are different from the Nazis?

[mikema63]

They sound more like Republicans than Nazi's.

[Frollein]

According to Wikipedia, they promote climate change denial, forced conscription, nationalism, traditional values, and have anti-Semitism and anti-gay rights leanings? Care to specify how they are different from the Nazis?

Sure, they are so homophobic and antisemitic that they have gays and Jews as party members.

Wikipedia? Really?

Their party programme has been translated into English. Weren't you the one strongly advocating for using primary sources?

[MememyselfandIJK]

Weren't you the one strongly advocating for using primary sources

In that case, could you link me to one? I can't find it, just news sources.

[Frollein]

https://www.afd.de/grundsatzprogramm-englisch/

[MememyselfandIJK]

Only read the first two sections so far (that's their policies on the government and the EU), but seems somewhat like what the Wikipedia article suggests. For example:

We reject the idea of a United States of Europe...

Who said that Europe was planning to unify into a single nation? It seems to be that they are paranoid of that possibility and, while it is in Germany's best interest to keep it, they seem to want to severely weaken it.

However, I must revise what they said earlier. They seem more An-Cap than Nazi and, yes, the populism is clear here. I would like to point out that allowing for the constitution to so easily be changed could allow people to vote in a dictator during hard times (yes, I know you know what I mean). It seems like a nice basis for a libertarian government, but it is a little too easily bent to the power of popular desperation (especially since the West is pretty much coasting at this point and could hit a downturn pretty soon) and needs a little tweaking. The general idea of extreme popular sovereignty could work if you don't like the government in general, but aren't too sure about anarchy.


So far they seem to be fairly nationalistic, sprouting "sovereignty" all over the place, but also in favor of a smaller government -- a typical center/center-right platform. How does this party fit into the German political spectrum?

Will read more and reply later. Haven't hit the sensitive issues yet.

[mikema63]

Who said that Europe was planning to unify into a single nation?

There's been talk about making it a fiscal as well as monetary union which would result in a single nation in all but name. There are actually a few good arguments for it to stabilize the shared currency and prevent problems like the Greek stuff.

I don't know enough to know if that's actually a good policy of course, but a lot of people are basically pushing in that direction.

[MememyselfandIJK]

I don't know enough to know if that's actually a good policy of course, but a lot of people are basically pushing in that direction.

It would be tricky and states would initially have to retain some sovereignty, but I can easily see the benefits, especially if NATO crumbles.

Video

[Frollein]

They mostly reject the "ever closer union" (aka United Stated of Europe) because of the severe economic disparities of the member states - a fiscal union would mean that the northern states would indefinitely subsidize the southern states, while the southern states would refuse to change their laws, for example, the retirement age (approaching 70 in Germany, staying at comfortable 60 in France...) or cut their bloated state apparatus.

The other argument against the USE is the lack of democratic participation - the democratic institutions of the EU are very weak, and there is no sign that this will change. Parliament is a joke, and referenda are being repeated until the "right" result is reached (just ask the Irish...)

And what do you have against national sovereignty? Self-determination works better on a smaller scale. The bigger the entity, the easier it falls into the hands of "elites." Look at your own country.

[Rugoz]

The AfD decided to be a loser party. Merkel will profit.

[colliric]

They mostly reject the "ever closer union" (aka United Stated of Europe) because of the severe economic disparities of the member states - a fiscal union would mean that the northern states would indefinitely subsidize the southern states, while the southern states would refuse to change their laws, for example, the retirement age (approaching 70 in Germany, staying at comfortable 60 in France...) or cut their bloated state apparatus.

Kinda almost like the situation that led to the American Civil War....

[Rugoz]

...or cut their bloated state apparatus.

Coming from a German that's kind of comical.

[Drlee]

They mostly reject the "ever closer union" (aka United Stated of Europe) because of the severe economic disparities of the member states - a fiscal union would mean that the northern states would indefinitely subsidize the southern states, while the southern states would refuse to change their laws, for example, the retirement age (approaching 70 in Germany, staying at comfortable 60 in France...) or cut their bloated state apparatus.

The other argument against the USE is the lack of democratic participation - the democratic institutions of the EU are very weak, and there is no sign that this will change. Parliament is a joke, and referenda are being repeated until the "right" result is reached (just ask the Irish...)

And what do you have against national sovereignty? Self-determination works better on a smaller scale. The bigger the entity, the easier it falls into the hands of "elites." Look at your own country.

They should reject it. It is a preposterous idea. I know it is unpopular to say it but the diversity of nations is what makes Europe vital and interesting. We in the US have a problem just keeping very similar states towing the line not to mention countries as diverse as those in the EU. In my perfect solution even the EU has gone much to far.

[Beren]

The Donald has made four tweets in the last one hour, all about the fake news media. He must be very upset!

[MistyTiger]

Too bad for him! Will he call the cameras fake too? There are so many cringeworthy video clips of his trip.

[Igor Antunov]

For months every fake scandal reported in fake news has been based on anonymous (fake) sources. He has every reason to be tweeting about the fake news and how fake they are. It's his duty to inform the electorate of the fakery of the fake news.

[MememyselfandIJK]

For months every fake scandal reported in fake news has been based on anonymous (fake) sources. He has every reason to be tweeting about the fake news and how fake they are. It's his duty to inform the electorate of the fakery of the fake news.

Evidence? You aren't citing your sources either.

[Beren]

For months every fake scandal reported in fake news has been based on anonymous (fake) sources. He has every reason to be tweeting about the fake news and how fake they are. It's his duty to inform the electorate of the fakery of the fake news.

We're being reported about the fake news being fake all the time, it's only the dose that has been raised to 4 tweets/hour. Fake news being fake seems like the most important issue for this administration, fake news should be nuked before North Korea perhaps.

[colliric]

For months every fake scandal reported in fake news has been based on anonymous (fake) sources. He has every reason to be tweeting about the fake news and how fake they are. It's his duty to inform the electorate of the fakery of the fake news.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly stuck up for Kushner anyway, he did nothing wrong in discussing back channel communication possibilities with the Russians. After all President Kennedy did it too, saved us during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Precedent is there for these kind of communication channels with Russia for diplomatic purposes.

[quetzalcoatl]

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly stuck up for Kushner anyway, he did nothing wrong in discussing back channel communication possibilities with the Russians. After all President Kennedy did it too, saved us during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Precedent is there for these kind of communication channels with Russia for diplomatic purposes.

Yes, of course, "diplomatic purposes." And I'm quite certain John Scali strolled into Dobrynin's office and suggested setting up a comm channel in the secure section of the Soviet Embassy. "By the way, Anatoly, let's not mention this to our American friends."