SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Germany could hold new elections if Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union fails to form a stable coalition government:
The breakdown of the coalition talks last weekend has done more than dent Ms. Merkel's seeming invulnerability and raise the prospect of new elections, analysts say. Although the Social Democrats agreed on Friday to meet with the chancellor's party next week — raising hopes for, if not a coalition, then a tolerated minority government — the current situation may well signal the breakdown of Germany's postwar tradition of consensus and the dawn of a messy and potentially unnerving politics.
"The distinctive political tradition of the Federal Republic of Germany is change through consensus," said Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European studies at the University of Oxford. That was what was at stake, he said. "It hasn't worked so far this time."
The leader of the Social Democrats has said that the party's members would have to vote on joining a coalition led by Merkel.
Also at DW (alternate), BBC, The Hill, and NYT (11/20 editorial).
Related: Germany's jubilant far-right has Merkel in its sights
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:30PM (4 children)
You are assuming that however one Muslim behaves is how they all behave. Because a small number of Muslims in the Middle East are adopting extremism you feel that all Muslims are extremists. You are wrong.
Many western nations have fought wars against each other, have been frightened of each other, and have adopted extremist views of each other. WW1 and WW2 where the main protagonists (but not necessarily the majority of those fighting) were predominantly Christian are good examples, but that doesn't mean that all Christians are evil. We have a history of inter-Christian wars and extremism - look at the battles that have been fought between Catholicism and Anglican/Presbyterian/Whatever. There are good and bad people to be found hiding behind any religion.
What Merkel was responsible for, along with a few other European leaders, was the belief that there is no need for borders within Europe. However, the ease by which the refugees have crossed Europe has caused many to have doubts in the wisdom of this view. Terrorists have carried out attacks in France but have been outside of France with hours of the attacks taking place. France may have extra checks at its airports and sea ports, but those extra checks do not apply in, say, Italy, Greece or elsewhere in Europe. It makes it relatively easy for those wishing to escape to do so. Fortunately, many have chosen to stay in Europe so get arrested or shot sometime later. The UK never accepted the border less Europe. Greece and Italy have, at various times recently, look at securing their borders to prevent the influx of refugees - but they are not allowed to under the laws pertaining to the Schengen agreement. Another case of Europe, imho, emptying both barrels into the same foot.
Don't judge people by their religion - judge them by their actions. If you were not an AC, I suspect we could find somebody with the same nationality and beliefs as yourself who has carried out some despicable act. But we do not judge you by their actions, only by your own actions here.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:31PM (2 children)
Double digit percentages of Muslims holding U.S. citizenship support imposing Sharia, support violent action against infidels, including here on U.S. soil. That number is stable and repeated across time. Elsewhere in the world that support crosses 50%. Sorry, if that number dropped to 0.1% I'd still recommend deporting every motherfucking one of them. Where is the upside to keeping them? And more important, where is the upside to allowing ONE more to gain citizenship? Drop the jihad support to 0.01 and I'd be willing to discuss allowing the existing population to assimilate but I mean ASSIMILATE the way they mean it.
We can't maintain an open high trust civilization with armed guards and backscatter detectors everywhere. Something has to give, I say remove the problem at the root and be done with it. They can do whatever they want in their lands, EXCEPT build weapons of mass destruction to make war on us with. Any hint of that should be met with an ultraviolent response that leaves zero doubt as to our will to survive them. Sorry if someone's feels are harmed by that attitude but when somebody comes out of mosques for over a generation chanting "Death to America" I plan to assume they mean it. The entire extent of my mercy is in not glassing their sorry asses now, but it most assuredly doesn't extend to sitting by idly as they build the means to achieve my doom.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by r1348 on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:22PM (1 child)
[citation needed]
And no, Breitbart won't be accepted as source.
(Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:48PM
Pew good enough for ya? Good grief, Google got results on the first effing page. Do you even belong here if your kung-fu is that weak? Sure you are smart enough for this ride?
American Muslims views on terrorism... [pewforum.org]
Note they are spinning, when Progs poll it is more to MAKE public opinion than reflect it. "Muslims say killing for political, social or religious reasons is not justifiable" is the headline above the table but the actual poll question is "... do you personally feel that this kind of violence can ____ be justified?" and then they report 12% of "all Muslims" say "Often/Sometimes" And remember, this poll is clearly a push poll if you look at it much. They also throw an obviously spurious "U.S. general public" 14% figure in there as chaff. Most pew polling of Islamic thought conspiciously excludes the U.S. and Europe but does have plenty of terrifying results. Wanna know why Putin is coming down hard on em, Pew says 22% of Muslims in Russia want Sharia Law.
And Google can find plenty more where that came from, most a lot more depressing than a Pew whitewash attempt.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 25 2017, @10:49PM
Sorry Jan, but I'm mostly with J-Mo he--aaugh, hang on a moment...*geuuurrrrghpth*...ugh, that is vile. Sorry. Yeah...sorry, but some cultures are not compatible with 21st century civilization. Most of the Middle East's cultures are among that number. I would say much of the US, especially that part of it below the Mason-Dixon line, is in almost the same situation of course.
Now, it could be successfully argued that the reason most of the Middle East's cultures are so awful is because of Anglo-American meddling over the last 100 years or so; I would not disagree there. So maybe some of this is a sort of national-level karma. But still, there's a difference between allowing immigration and having essentially open borders. That means the entire collection of open borders countries are only as secure as their weakest links.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...