deleted by creator

TIL there can be cardboard in doors

It made me wonder how many americans are currently in the process of fleeing their country or have made concrete plans to leave when their Rubicon, where ever it may lie, is crossed.

If you say that banning a party because it plans to destroy democracy itself destroys democracy then you are talking of democracy as am absolute. So after banning the party democracy vanishes and we live in a not democratic state anymore. That’s not the case though. It would still be a democracy. Banning a party is a dilemma, either you let the people have their say which is more democratic and then after you have let them then you don’t have a democracy anymore or you don’t and then you have less of a democracy in the sense that one position of planning to completely destroy democracy is not allowed but it still is a democracy on all the other issues at least.

As for whether the party will use loopholes to destroy democracy: that’s a complex issue and difficult to determine. We may not agree on that. That’s why we leave it to a court to settle.

Banning parties isn’t always anti-democratic. The reason why is a bit unituitive so I explained it quite detailed but I believe that’s necessary. Take for example a hypothetical party X. Party X will use legal loopholes to effectively destroy democracy when it gets into power (restrict free speech, manipulate ballots, lock up the opposition, etc.) . Now party X gets the majority. That creates a situation where Party X stays in Power indefinitely. Now at some point the majority of people people change their mind and now they wouldn’t vote for the party anymore so the government isn’t representative of the people anymore. But it doesn’t matter anymore because democracy is dead in the country now. So now the people have to go through the whole establishing democracy process again which costs many lives and many years of living under oppression. That could have been skipped if party X had been banned. Now the problem remains that a majority of people weren’t represented in a election. That’s obviously bad. However keep in mind that the only thing we need to ban to skip all those years of oppression is to ban a single thing that party’s just aren’t allowed to do. And that thing is being antidemocratic. So banning that one single thing allows us to keep all the other nice thing that democracy has to offer.

What’s your opinion on Marlene Engelhorn’s handling of her inheritance? I don’t mean this as a suggestion or condescending, I am merely interested in what your thoughts about her are as someone in a similar position.

Don’t beg the media to change. Change what media you consume. Listening to the 20th Trump interview won’t give you any new insights since he will only talk to people that don’t push him too hard. For non bootlicking media look to the ones he sanctioned. AP, PBS, Politico, NYT to name a few among more.

Is’bound in your right eye’ a typo?

No it’s not anti-democratic. The parties can’t ban the AFD only initiate the process. Whether the AFD is antidemocratic and a has the ability to undermine democracy is decided by the highest court. Precisely so they can’t just ban the opposition.

With a lot of oil

Ty

A cool screenshot I took

I can’t go out in summer cause I constantly have to say no homo and people keep looking at me all weird

As a non native English speaker I thought a Burr was a bird at first and this was part of a wing

Well. I guess now no one can say that freedom of press exists in the US anymore. During the Assange persecution people could still say that that was for revealing state secrets but this is unjustifiable.

Oh wow. Had to look this up since I couldn’t believe that domestic deployment against protests in the USA in a non civil war scenario was legal. By aparrently it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(album)?wprov=sfla1

Do you think track 2 should have been a single?