who want citizenship revoked

For who and for what? Going to have to be more specific if you want me to respond.

The “fuck up the environment” one is - without knowing their policy - I’m guessing about “renewables”?

Here in Australia more and more people are realising that our “100% renewables” power plan is a complete shit show and is anything but “renewable” and will cause greater long term damage. More and more people want nuclear because it’s cheaper, cleaner, and doesn’t require the endless resources and space that “renewables” do. Our power prices have skyrocketed to some of the highest in the world the more we shift to “renewables”. Our government still refuses to tell us how much the total projected cost of the “renewables” plan is, with some estimates putting it in the trillions of dollars realm.

Was in the process of editing answers/questions down the bottom of my post.

Immigration can and should be cut off at times. Here in Australia we have a massive housing crisis and cost of living crisis. We currently have all time high levels of immigration at a time when we have a housing crisis with homelessness skyrocketing. We literally cannot house the people we have, and most of the population can’t afford to buy a house because the demand far outstrips the supply which has caused house pricing to explode.

The absolute best thing we could do at the moment is to cut immigration until we can get the housing crisis under control. What good does importing another million people a year do when we have nowhere to put them?

“Illegal immigrants” is not “derogatory”, it is a factual description. They broke the law to enter the country. They are in the country illegally. They are an immigrant. Illegal immigrant. This is how language works.

Bad faith? Having people apply for asylum before entering a country is a bad faith argument? Think about what is being proposed. Someone wants to get asylum in Germany. Before entering Germany they apply for asylum. They could do that from their home in the country they’re wanting asylum from. They could do it from any other country. The AfD is just saying “don’t enter our country illegally and then ask if you can come in - ask first”, which is fair because once they’re in the country there are people who will say they should not be allowed to be deported - like you. You’re making up the existence of these “offshore internment camps” in this situation.

Is that the case with the photoshopped knuckle tattoos

No, it’s the one where a bunch of room temperature IQ people thought that the annotations describing what each of the tattoos stood for were being presented as tattoos.

The US government wants to deport people who are in the country illegally. That’s the “profile”. Not a single citizen has been deported so far. Deportations are a great tool for deporting illegal immigrants. This isn’t really debatable.

Your experience as a landlord seemed irrelevant to the topic

Ok so you just didn’t get the point. I’ll explain it again:

Someone entering my house without being invited in is illegal entry. I offer a way for people to enter my house legally, a rental application. When someone applies to rent my house, I don’t let them move in while I review their application, because then if I chose not to accept their application they’re already in my house and I have to jump through all sorts of legal issues to get them out. Out of a place that they should not be. Instead what I do is review their application while they live in their current house, and if successful I let them move in.

Does that help?

All of your “they want to do x/y/z because they’re too woke” stuff - what actually are their policies? Do you mean that they want to defund government funded media who push certain ideologies and implement certain policies like DEI?

The “remove the outmoded political party system” seems like something most of the far left want to do doesn’t it?

Ok so you basically want unregulated immigration and think that any attempts to stop it is nazi-adjacent, or just straight up nazi behaviour.

people aren’t “illegal”

Way to argue in bad faith. People can be “illegal immigrants” which is what is being discussed. Illegal immigrants are immigrants that entered the country illegally. They broke the law. No one is saying a person is illegal. Thats the very definition of a bad faith argument, intentionally cherry picking words out of context and acting like they mean something that they don’t so you can attack them and/or the poster.

Making a process for asylum seekers to get approval to enter the country before entering the country isn’t “removing rights of asylum seekers for due process” in any way. It’s giving them due process to enter the country rather than letting them in and then having to go through endless processes to remove them if they’re not granted asylum. It makes sense. It’s the smart thing to do. It fixes many issues with the current system. What rights do you think it takes away?

deporting father of 3 with no priors

You mean the MS-13 gang member who has lived in the country illegally for 13 years without any attempt to become a legal citizen, who had twice been ordered to be deported back to his home country, where he now is? That “Maryland father”? “No priors” is also a lie. He broke the law, self admittedly, entering the country illegally. He didn’t show up to multiple court cases despite admitting he knew about them.

Like I said, your position is that all immigration should be legal. Thats a position alright, but it’s a very unpopular one that only the furthest of the far left advocate for. It’s no wonder why you claim that a party who want to control immigration are Nazis and should be banned from becoming too popular.

Cool story

So you didn’t get the point that was being made, or you have no way to refute it?

So their policy documents etc are lies? Based on what? Verifiable proof would be great. What is being misrepresented in there exactly?

Can you provide some of these quotes that go against their policies and confirm what you’re saying they want to do?

Ok so you do mean illegal immigrants. Can someone apply for asylum in Germany without illegally entering the country? A quick google shows that that is what the AfD are proposing - asylum seekers apply before entering the country. Germany isn’t an island so that shouldn’t be too difficult, and seems reasonable. What is the issue with only people who are granted asylum being allowed in? Believe it or not, letting everyone in and then choosing who to deport leads to large number of people who are not granted asylum just staying illegally, as the current situation in the USA shows. They try to deport illegals who have lived there for 13+ years without even attempting to get asylum, and everyone blows up at them saying they should just leave them alone.

If someone wants to rent my property I don’t let them stay in it while I process their application.

Removed by mod

You’re misrepresenting their policies.

https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf

Show me in there which policies you’re referring to please?

By mass deportation of foreigners do you mean illegal immigrants?

It seems like you’re fear mongering against the AfD based on things you think they might do simply because you believe they’re the second coming of the Nazis.

And again so you don’t take this the wrong way - if people in here were arguing for a “progressive” party to be taken off the ballot I’d be arguing against that and saying that they’re the ones being authoritarian fascists.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

The AfD wants people with the “wrong kind of moustache” deported? Source?

Note I have NEVER said that the AfD are “the good guys”. I’m defending democracy. If people want to vote for a party that wants to rid their universities of racist DEI policies, wants to rid social media of censorship of one side of all political debates, etc then they should be able to.

I would say the same for anyone that dares to say that any “woke left” parties should be removed from any elections. That’s not democracy. You don’t just remove parties from there because you don’t like them. That’s authoritarian fascism.

I’m the one being called a nazi repeatedly! Lol

Also your post literally starts with

so according to you

And then goes on to say a bunch of stuff that I DID NOT SAY NOR EVEN HINT AT - and then you say there was no mischaracterization? No “indirect quote”?

You literally made up things and said that it was “according to me”!

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

It absolutely would be a horrible idea lol. wtf are you talking about?!

You’re asking for a dictatorship as long as it’s one that says they’ll do what you want. If you make rules allowing for a political party to remove any competitors and install themselves in power for as long as they want, how could it possibly go wrong?. Jesus Christ.

So would you be ok with trump declaring an emergency government for himself for the next 20 years and removing all far left policies and making sure no left of centre parties can ever take control?

Did you just delete my comment and reply to it so no one can see what I actually said, while completely fabricating the message of what I said? Lol

Removed by mod

You’re calling other people “more simple minded” when you don’t understand the difference between the different meanings of the word conservative lol. The political meaning of “conservative” is different than “conservative” as in “we need to conserve water”. Completely different things.

It’s bizarre that I have to explain this, but “conservative” in political terms does not mean “to conserve” as in “we need to conserve water” etc. It means favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.