Germany’s centre-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), which are holding coalition talks, have proposed a law that will block people with multiple extremism convictions from standing in elections.
Germany’s centre-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), which are holding coalition talks, have proposed a law that will block people with multiple extremism convictions from standing in elections.
By far not the same level as extremism.
Fck little sister of whataboutism, the self-elevating sarcasm.
So you’re OK with a plutocracy?
I’m not okay with saying extremism is the same as taking money for influence.
Who said that? They’re suggesting that, since you’re putting restrictions, you might as well add other restrictions that also make sense.
Yeah but clearly the original comment is ironic since it addresses CDU as corrupt. You know, one of the two parties that would be main drivers behind the suggested extremists banning?
Soo it kind of looks like whataboutism.
The comment is very unlikely to be sarcastic. CDU is known to have deep ties into every single incumbent industry in Germany and Merz himself is a former chemical lobbyist and was a chair of the German BoD of BlackRock.
Yeah but that’s what i’m saying, given that this same CDU is one of the two parties behind the coalition talks for banning far-right politicians. Only a sarcastic comment would suggest them to do a similar vote against bribery which would get rid of a lot of CDU politicians themselves. Why would they do that if they are corrupt, vote against their own interests?
So, then why suggest this at all? Clearly to steer the discussion away from the original topic - banning far- right politicians.
I do appreciate the info tidbit there that CDU are corrupt, but I don’t appreciate the distraction. Or that was my point, anyway.
Eh, you’re right, it’s sarcastic in the sense of telling them act to against their self-interest.
However, I don’t think @hendrik is trying to distract from the issue of far-right politics.
In addition, (actual!) anti-corruption legislation has a massive potential to hurt right-wingers, because their politics is oriented toward defending/opposing particular groups of people (blind loyalty) rather than defending/opposing values (morality).
Right, which is why it can still be a good change, even if done my a corrupt party… Granted, if its done right or done at all. Like, in an ideal world, sure lets throw the bribery thing in there as well. But you know, lets be realistic and go one step at a time…
The comment I‘m commenting
This is a slippery slope fallacy I believe. Stop with the fallacious reasoning
Not really. Governing through bribery is a way to implement plutocracy.
To be clear: “I tolerate plutocracy but I draw the line at fascism” is a valid opinion, even if I don’t agree with it. I was just asking if that’s the opinion held by our fellow lemming.