Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the there-may-be-trouble-ahead dept.

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


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:47AM (38 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:47AM (#601337)

    Mutti has been sucking moslem schwanzstucker for so long nobody else wants to kiss her now.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @10:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @10:12AM (#601338)

      I came here to say about the same thing.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:01AM (19 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:01AM (#601344)

      Quite disgusting. You know what the the difference between 1930s Nazis and you? Pretty much nothing.

      The entire root cause of hate is fear. And people are rather cowards, as you can see from the parent. What they don't understand, they fear. And what they fear, they learn to hate. You can take stories from late 1920s or 1930s about Jews and compare them to stories about Islam today in the "alt-right" circles, and they are all the same.

      So my question would be, why are you so afraid? Why are you scared? Warum sind Sie ein Hosenscheisser? Do you need a hug from a moslem to finally realize that everyone is the same and just wants to live a normal life?

      As for where this hate leaves, it's simply war, death and general shit. For everyone.

      http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8stagesofgenocide.html [genocidewatch.org]

      1. CLASSIFICATION
      2. SYMBOLIZATION
      3. DEHUMANIZATION
      4. ORGANIZATION
      5. POLARIZATION
      6. PREPARATION
      7. EXTERMINATION
      8. DENIAL

      So, where are we in the "West" about Islam? About stage 2-3? Trump would love it to have 4, but not quite. In nations like Poland, we are closer to stage 5.

      Of course, some parts of Islam are exactly the same. ISIS is like #7, except they were rather pathetic.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:34AM (6 children)

        by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:34AM (#601348) Homepage Journal

        It's about cultures. Personally, I like Western culture. It has create a lot of good things, not least of which is most of modern civilization. Massive immigration from other cultures is a serious danger. I like our culture, and I want to keep it. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

        Let's try an analogy, and two different situations:

        Situation 1: You live in a nice house. A friend of a friend is in a bad place. You give them permission to stay with you for a while, until they can get their life back together. Maybe, at your option, you will invite them to become permanent roommates. It's your house, you are in control. This is the equivalent of granting asylum.

        Situation 2: You forget to lock your door, and come home to find that a bunch of random strangers have moved into your lving room. Your place is so much better than where they were before, so they tell you that they are staying permanently. Oh, and they'll be telling their friends and families to come as well. This is the equivalent of open borders and uncontrolled migration.

        The second situation is what Ms. Merkel has created in Europe, by refusing to enforce European borders. This is a danger to our culture and way of life. The borders need to be closed. Anyone who has arrived in Europe illegally needs to be sent home. Entry by invitation, not by invasion.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by bd on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:40PM (5 children)

          by bd (2773) on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:40PM (#601371)

          As much as I hate Chancellor Merkels politics, your analogy, as well as your grasp on what happens in Germany, frankly sucks. To use an analogy of my own, it is basically equivalent in verity to me saying that Trump is proof Americans are stupid and literally voted for Hitler.

          So, why is your analogy wrong?

          It was not Germany that didn't enforce its borders, it was Greece.

          Once the balkans route was established and popular in the Syrian refugee community, the great migration was basically bound to happen.

          Making it legal made it possible to actually formally process these illegal arrivals. This enabled us to check their background stories, like checking wether the accent they speak matches their place of origin, whether they know places and people in the cities they come from, whether their passports are genuine etc.

          What happened has happened many times in the past, albeit at a smaller scale. People who come from actual war-torn countries are granted a place to stay here until their country is deemed safe again, and are repatriated after the fact. Typically a minority is successful in their life here and will be allowed to stay after that. This has happened with Kosovo-Albanians during the Kosovo conflict, South Vietnamese and many others.

          Those who are economic migrants are actually repatriated. This is what happens with Afghans right now, as ironically Afghanistan is deemed a safe place of origin.

          There used to be a lot of loopholes for economic migrants that were only considered a nuisance in the past. Due to the massive immigration happening, those are being closed.

          • (Score: 5, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:01PM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:01PM (#601397) Journal

            So, how did mass migration work out for the native North Americans? Or, the native Australians?

            Mass immigration is death for the existing culture, and we have plenty of examples in history to point to. Where are the people who lived in Europe before you round headed pale skinned people moved in? There are some theories that you ate them, other theories that you interbred with them to some limited extent, and yet other theories that you just murdered them, and left them for the animals to eat. Whatever it was - they're all gone. Well, except for maybe Denosovan man - he can still be found on the fringes of the arctic circle. I guess you Euros couldn't catch them before they got away.

            --
            Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
            • (Score: 2) by bd on Monday November 27 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)

              by bd (2773) on Monday November 27 2017, @04:10AM (#601934)

              Refugees are not migrants.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 27 2017, @10:41AM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 27 2017, @10:41AM (#602015) Journal

                I might ask you to explain - - -

                History is full of people migrating from one place, to another. Here in the US, the Apache, among others, migrated from one place to another, under pressure from rival tribes. Their (oral) history didn't start in the southwest, near the Mexican border. They moved there from Colorado and Kansas, I believer. (I'd have to do a search for accuracy, but that's close enough for my purpose here.) They weren't viewed as "refugees", nor do I think that they would have described themselves as refugees, or victims. There was pressure that they couldn't stand up to, so they moved southward, where there was less pressure. They "migrated" into the lands where the Spanish and Anglos eventually found them.

                There are any number of accounts of migrant people in European history. Germanic tribes, Turkic tribes, and more. Always, they are described as migrating from one place to another. Most certainly, there were pressures pushing them along, but they were migrants.

                Today's "refugees" are no different. There's a war at home, they are unable or unwilling to fight that war, so they migrate elsewhere.

                And, today's Europeans put up no resistance. Unless they get some backbone, the Euros will be overwhelmed. Then, it will be "Goodby, Western culture!!"

                --
                Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)

            by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:41PM (#601408) Homepage Journal

            Obviously, I disagree with you. Sure, Greece (and Italy and Spain) are immediately at fault for failing to secure their borders. However, Merkel pretty much led the European politics into providing the migrants with a goal: a place they could expect to stay. Had the initial migrants been caught and expelled, the movement would never have gathered momentum.

            Want to stop people drowning in the Mediterranean? End the incentive to try to cross. Turn the boats around. When you rescue people at sea, return them to the coast they left from. They climb over a fence? Open the gate, and shove them back to the other side. Immigration by invitation, not by invasion.

            --
            Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
            • (Score: 2) by bd on Monday November 27 2017, @04:05AM

              by bd (2773) on Monday November 27 2017, @04:05AM (#601932)

              Of course, it is OK for you to disagree. I just read your point of view from a lot of Americans and UK citizens and am a bit tired of arguing about it. So, sorry for the wall of text.

              I guess the main point of disagreement is that you think her invitation started the whole mess.
              Or that refugees are migrants. You do realise that Syrians fall into the former category?

              Here is a run down on why I think Merkel couldn't have reacted differently:

              Immigration law in the EU is in dire need of reform, but there is no political will from the majority of member states who do not suffer the consequences.

              There is a huge refugee population in the middle east. They live in dire conditions. At least the Syrians among them came from a relatively wealthy country that was suddenly ravaged by war. At the beginning of the crisis, they had the economic means to travel to Europe using relatively expensive illegal smugglers. Many of them were also able to pay for hideouts. A typical Syrian refugee had already paid roughly 9000€ just for the smuggling to Germany.

              Germany was just one of several countries that refugees tried to get to due to local legal systems. Sweden and England were other targets.

              Funny enough, the increase in refugees had started in 2012, doubling every year and was already well underway when Merkel (an anti-immigration hardliner) changed her opinion and let Syrians apply for protected status ignoring EU rules in the summer of 2015. The numbers increased even more after her announcement, but it was not such a dramatic shift in increase per time unit. Looking at the trend of the preceding years, in the most extreme case, I would guess that the number of refugees in 2016 was twice of what it otherwise would have been.

              Why did she give the order to accept applications?

              As much as I disagree with her politically, she has an acute sense for public opinion. Letting the immigrants die in the streets of Budapest just to make a point would have meant even more backlash than her pro-asylum stance. But there were practical reasons as well.

              According to the EU Dublin-III agreement, Germany was only within its rights to send all the refugees they found back to Greece, as that was the place they entered the EU. Greece would then have to take care of them. If they did so, Greece would have collapsed. If they didn't, they would just come back.

              Why would they come back? If they stay illegally for a defined timespan (up to 18 months), Dublin-III makes their asylum process the responsibility of Germany again. The asylum process is protected by the constitution, and there is a good likelyhood that it has to be granted in the case of Syrians (There was only a 30% rejection rate in 2016).

              The result would have been at least several hundreds of thousands of people trying to stay under the radar in Germany. Amongst those, there would be potentially a hundred terrorists. If they are granted the ability to apply for asylum, those terrorists can either be vetted by the security agencies if they apply for the process, or are more obvious as they are part of only a relatively small population of people living here illegally.

              Terror attacks were bound to happen either way, but the political implications would have been severe if those guys managed to hide more efficiently because Germany was too stubborn with the rules to at least take a look at those new arrivals.

              This crisis created a very high number of refugees in a short amount of time, but not an unheard of one. It was roughly the same number of people as those that came here during the Bosnian Wars, but in shorter a shorter timeframe. The necessity to act enabled political majorities for changes in the asylum process that make it quick and efficient in repatriating those who don't have asylum.

              So, who says the refugees will stay in Germany after Syria has been declared safe again, like Afghanistan?

              In the end, Merkel achieved her goal of tougher immigration laws and no giant illegal population. As a bonus, the intelligence agencies get massive amounts of asylum application interviews while such information still contains useful leads.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:49PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:49PM (#601393) Journal

        u😸

        --
        Keep all chemicals out of the reach of meth heads.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:04PM (#601414)

        Bugger. Let's go straight to 7, with you and your moslem bunkie first.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @06:34PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @06:34PM (#601448)

        [quote]You can take stories from late 1920s or 1930s about Jews and compare them to stories about Islam today in the "alt-right" circles, and they are all the same.

        So my question would be, why are you so afraid?[/quote]
        In the '20s and '30s, were Jews beheading people for apostasy, blasphemy or homosexuality and were they shouting religious slogans before blowing themselves up in suicide bomb/vehicle/knife/gun attacks? Just asking.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:30PM (4 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:30PM (#601467) Journal

          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.

          --
          It's always my fault...
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:31PM (2 children)

            by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:31PM (#601491)

            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)

              by r1348 (5988) on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:22PM (#601503)

              [citation needed]

              And no, Breitbart won't be accepted as source.

              • (Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:48PM

                by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday November 25 2017, @09:48PM (#601513)

                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

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 25 2017, @10:49PM (#601531) Journal

            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...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @06:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @06:50PM (#601454)

        So, where are we in the "West" about Islam?

        About here. [twimg.com]

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:23PM (#601464)

        Humans have these emotions for good reason. Evolution gave us these emotions because the people without them are long dead.

        Lebanon was recently a Christian nation. Afghanistan was Buddhist. Bangladesh was Hindu.

        How many nations have escaped the grasp of Islam? Going by modern names, I can think of only two. One is Spain, half a millennium ago. The other is Israel. Neither has fully escaped the grasp of Islam.

        When most immigration is Muslim, and when birthrates differ as they do, the end result is a simple matter of math.

        Yes, you should fear. You pretend to be worried about genocide, yet you face it willingly. Unless you do as Spain and Israel did, you are doomed. You will be exterminated.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:58PM

        by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:58PM (#601476)

        The entire root cause of hate is fear.

        And to quote the sign above Mars University (Futurama) "Knowledge Brings Fear" In this case, to understand the problem Islam presents to Western Civilization is to fear allowing this problem to fester. Nothing, absolutely nothing, good is going to come from Mad Merkel's open border policy. And nothing good is going to come from the U.S. importing millions of them either. They are incompatible with us, one must destroy the other if they are allowed to remain.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:33PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:33PM (#601744) Journal

        Of course Poland is at the Polarization step. They are Poles, after all.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:07AM (16 children)

      by looorg (578) on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:07AM (#601345)

      In essence I would say that this is probably true. She is now the symbol of something that is becoming increasingly unpopular, third world mass migration that brings nothing but trouble. Merkel claimed that "Wir schaffen es" (we can do it/this), clearly this was a much broader and general "we". Turns out that in reality nobody wants to be the 'we' anymore. Merkel is now somewhat tainted and others are afraid that it will rub off if they stand to close to her. So if you have any hope of staying in power in a post-Merkel era you try and get as far away as you can.

      That said the opposite idea or ideas are not all that appealing either; a new election with an uncertain result that costs a lot of money, the result would be uncertain and they are afraid that AFD will increase their numbers and that their own numbers will be the same or worse. So the situation after another election might, or quite likely, be about the same. In which case they just wasted a lot of time and money and that will make "mutti" seem even worse. Perhaps a minority government, which is a giant pain since it might turn out that you can't really govern with it as you just spend time waiting for the next election. All bad choices for Merkel is seems, time and opinions just passed her by. Her political life is clearly coming to an end, time to decide if she wants to fade away somewhat gracefully or go down in some kind of blaze of failure.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:46AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:46AM (#601352)

        Perhaps a minority government, which is a giant pain since it might turn out that you can't really govern with it as you just spend time waiting for the next election.

        Isn't a government that can't trouble citizens by its "governing", the very best option in most circumstances?

        • (Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:19PM (1 child)

          by looorg (578) on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:19PM (#601366)

          Isn't a government that can't trouble citizens by its "governing", the very best option in most circumstances?

          Sometimes it might be. It clearly depends on the circumstances. If everything is great and nothing needs to be done about anything, then this might be awesome. If things need to be done, if there needs to be changes cause the system is fucked up then this is clearly quite horrible. Since it just passes time and then usually makes the situation much worse -- unless you believe somehow that time heals all wounds and doing nothing is ok and just hope that it will magically (or some other way) resolve itself. Since the government in this case has clearly fucked up by letting in a massive amount of "useless" people that cause nothing but trouble. Just leaving that system in place and doing nothing about it is probably not the best solution.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:11PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:11PM (#601377)

            Since the government in this case has clearly fucked up by letting in a massive amount of "useless" people that cause nothing but trouble. Just leaving that system in place and doing nothing about it is probably not the best solution.

            When and where has ever existed a government that fixed its own failures?
            The very best those things can do, is not to compound them.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:03PM (11 children)

        by fritsd (4586) on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:03PM (#601354) Journal

        Third world mass migration that brings a lot of trouble is not going away just because it is becoming increasingly unpopular in the host countries.

        If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?

        Merkel saw it as an acute problem with no good solutions. So, once in her career, she had to let go of her legendary carefullness, and just act impulsively because she was in the right political position to do it.
        A Real Stateswoman(TM) tries to deal with problems as they occur, not just find a scapegoat!

        That cost her dearly, and is very easy to exploit by populists such as the AfD, but on the other hand: the Wende didn't go perfectly either, and everybody was just suddenly forced to get along with those weirdos from the other side of the comforting Wall.
        The Germans coped, both Ossies and Wessies (I like the film "Goodbye Lenin", can't imagine what the culture shock must have been like in reality). They weren't all happy about it but they just coped with it.

        I seriously believe that was what Mutti tried to communicate when she said: "Wir schaffen das". "We will cope with this, also."

        Even though I'm not German, for many years now I've occasionally had the following thought: Imagine that in an alternate reality dr. Angela Merkel was not the Bundeskänzlerin, but by some coincidence it was herr Bundeskanzler Silvio Berlusconi.

        How would Berlusconi have dealt with the worldwide finance crisis?

        How would Berlusconi have dealt with the Greek bankruptcy? Think about how creative the man is with his insults.

        How would Berlusconi have dealt with the Russian annexation of Crimea and the "green men" and tanks in Donetsk?

        How would Berlusconi have dealt with the flood of refugees in 2015-2016?

        If you think the answer to any of these is: "He'd just have uttered some humorous clever remarks, and everybody would have gladly obeyed him and do as the great statesman proposed, and it would all work out", then you're DELUDED.

        Merkel used her extreme cunning to keep her emotions under control, her foreign enemies off-balance, her domestic political back-stabbers subdued. She herself did away with her own mentor, Helmut Kohl; not many politicians could have managed that.
        She's not some "nice old naive lady" at all, but she acts one brilliantly when needed.

        It's inhuman, the way Merkel used her power and Germany's power against these various "shitstorms" as she calls it. And she managed it, without causing a single war.

        Also I believe she really does her best. Combined with her proven competence, I'd vote CDU if I was German, even though I tend towards die Grünen or SPD.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:34PM (1 child)

          by looorg (578) on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:34PM (#601369)

          Third world mass migration that brings a lot of trouble is not going away just because it is becoming increasingly unpopular in the host countries.
          If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?

          Letting them in is clearly not the right answer. This is a problem that has to be resolved. There was actually a system in place, at least on paper -- but it collapsed as soon as it was tried in reality. The Schengen agreement was there to help people (and goods) IN Europe to move about freely. It was not to let foreigners move about as they wanted. The Dublin Regulation collapsed almost instantly since was what was supposed to control this, asylum seekers should apply for asylum at the first safe country they reach, ie a border country, not walk across all of Europe to reach their "dream", in which case they are not actual asylum seekers but economical migrants. So either way it is something to be resolved and not something that one just have to endure like the merger of East- and West-Germany. (But I do agree that Goodbye Lenin was an excellent movie).

          There is no doubt that Angela Merkel was once a good leader, but she put all her power behind a failure and there is probably no coming back from this. She is personally associated with, and responsible for, a horrible failure that will plague Germany and Europe for decades. There is just no getting past that and the only reason she probably isn't gone already is that there is no one around to replace her. All the other power players in the country are weak, she has not groomed and heir either. The rise of the AFD is in that way a response to her failure.

          • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:30PM

            by fritsd (4586) on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:30PM (#601385) Journal

            I agree with what you say about Schengen and the Dublin Regulation; I suspect that it was set up to deal with a stream of a few thousand Somalis and Congolese and Afghanis per year. No law or regulation was prepared for this "Great Migration Period", at least our modern-day Visigoths and Merovingians and Huns just fled from war, the vast majority of them didn't bring it with them (maybe in their heads though. One Syrian asylum seeker kid in my village couldn't speak anymore).

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:34PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:34PM (#601388)

          If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?

          IF you get such people, and they're for real, you just need to plainly inform them of a couple rules that will be enforced. They flaunt your laws and follow their own, they get sent back. They try to clone their country within yours, they get sent back. Those who are not fake, will behave; those doing damage, get cast out.

          If they really ran from what they've had out there, why they want to bring it with them?

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by leftover on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:52PM (1 child)

            by leftover (2448) on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:52PM (#601411)

            Why bring it with them? Because it is what they know.

            --
            Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:11PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:11PM (#601416)

              So they need to learn something else.

              Preferably without suicide bombers and IED's.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:22PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:22PM (#601432)

            Why bring it with them? Just like the pilgrims, they want to be in a place where they can be *their* type of assholes.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:54PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:54PM (#601395)

          If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?

          You let them die.

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 26 2017, @06:03AM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 26 2017, @06:03AM (#601624) Homepage

            You shoot them on sight. NATO/EU Army want training? They have it. And they deliver the most effective discouragement of the infiltration of their outer border seen in centuries.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:09PM (#601415)

          "If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?"

          Simple. Let them die. Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:14PM (#601418)

          If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?

          Shoot them when they try to breach your border?

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by crafoo on Sunday November 26 2017, @06:14AM

          by crafoo (6639) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 26 2017, @06:14AM (#601629)

          "If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?"

          Easy question. The same way Hungary, Poland, Israel, and any number of other countries stop them. Meet illegal immigration with violence, strong borders, and deportation of illegals found within your borders. Israel just deported 40,000 Africans. It's pretty easy, actually. It's called rule of law and protecting your citizens.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:29PM (#601466)

        If one population grows by a factor of 5 per generation, and another "grows" by a factor of 0.6 per generation, simple math tells us what will happen. AfD has proposed nothing to stop this.

        In the end, one group will exterminate the other. I doubt the ethnic Germans will win this time, but we'll see. It won't take a century.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:52PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:52PM (#601362)

    Okay may be yes.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:46PM (4 children)

    by jmorris (4844) <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:46PM (#601493)

    The problem for Merkel is simple. She can now choose her ending but that is the extent of her options at this point. Stupid is supposed to hurt so this is good.

    She can admit defeat, call for fresh elections and watch AfD form a government. Before voting for AfD was kinda like voting Libertarian here in the U.S., a wasted protest vote, since the media had convinced everyone they wouldn't actually win seats. With that propaganda removed they will do MUCH better in any revote. Everyone admits this, which is why none of the established powers want a redo. If she had honor this is what she would do, so this option is out.

    She can double down and try harder to form a government without AfD. Doesn't look like it is going to happen unless she gives up so much it destabilizes things enough that it quickly collapses and her Party suffers a disaster of biblical proportion. But she could postpone things a year or so and cling to power with this option but the end game would be obviously preordained. The good outcome here is AfD comes to power, the bad option is literal Nazis.

    She could form a government with AfD. If she cut a deal with them NOW, while they are still politically weak she could give them a couple of key policy concessions and defang their support. This could be AfD's high water mark. This option would require she admit AfD and their voters are really Germans and have real grievances. In other words she would have to legitimize them. She can't do that and keep the support of the globalists backers who put her where she is. She would be done but her Party could remain in power.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26 2017, @01:09AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 26 2017, @01:09AM (#601551)

      Except that AfD so viscerally despises Frau Merkel that I would place the possibility of any such coalition as similar to the chances of finding a beer garden on Neptune. Realpolitik has it's limits.

      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 26 2017, @06:06AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 26 2017, @06:06AM (#601625) Homepage

        From what I understand, and that understanding is limited, only the influence of the AfD and not the AfD itself will be involved in the next government. But then again, my info is months-old, so did Merkel really fuck up that badly to actually give AfD some seats at the table?

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:40PM (1 child)

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 26 2017, @03:40PM (#601747) Journal

      Letting a minority party like that into government is exactly how the Nazis came to power last time. Von Pappen convinced Heidelberg to bring Hitler and the Nazis in because they were more afraid of the communists who were ascendant at that time.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @02:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @02:29AM (#601917)

        ...and then their country prospered.

(1)