Millions of Greens were not paedophiles. Not even all the members of BAG SchwuP were. It was an umbrella org for all outsider sexualities - gays and transexuals too. So there was some degree of being too accommodating of fringe groups in the past - but not such a strange thing in a party as brand new as the Greens were at the time. And who from BAG Schwup is currently in the Green leadership?
And yes, the 80s are far enough away to be another country in politics. Hell, the whole furore about Kevin Jennings was an issue for the current US administration, is that going to stop anyone voting Democrat? No, sensible people probably realise it was a pretty baseless attack by the Right made up of lies and half-truths. The notion that Bag Schwub was ever anything but a now-repudiated embarrassing fringe to the Greens is the same.
At 30% renewable energy (set to rise past 50% in the near future) Germany doesn’t need an excuse. There’s nothing anti-science about their energy path. The opposite, in fact ( speaking as someone who dabbles in sustainability issues from a scientific perspective ).
So you’re not against it, except you are? I’m getting mixed signals from that paragraph.
Multiculturalism works for US (:dubious:) & Canada but can’t in Germany? A country where 1 in 5 people is of some immigrant stock? The second most popular immigrant destination worldwide is somehow less capable of dealing with immigrants than the US?
Because of reasons that have to do with the Greens?
I don’t think you understand European perceptions very well - they are just as capable of Othering as Americans, the breakdown just doesn’t have to be along racial lines. Hell, lots of Germans of my acquaintance semi-seriously Other non-immigrant Germans because they’re not from the same state. I gather this is sometimes less semi- and more serious, too.
Europeans developed better welfare systems than the US for a multitude of reasons. But the reason you’re postulating - why does it work for Canada? Not too diverse enough?
I don’t think you understand my point. Let me phrase it as a question: for what reason do you associate the word “hipsterism” with the Greens?
Sounds like I would be throwing my vote away on Alternative for Germany. But none fit that well. I’m surprised the top two both have the word Christian in them.
The Christian Social Union (CSU) just happens to be the Bavarian flavor of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). It is a completely separate organization, though.
The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) (“Alternative for Germany”) is a fairly new group and nobody really knows where this is going. There are two factions in the AfD: A very fiscally conservative faction (much more so than the FDP) and a socially conservative faction: these are conservatives who where abandoned by the CDU when it moved to the center/the left.
Not to forget the outright xenophobic faction which makes up for a lot of the appeal to potential mindless voters. But OTOH, the former conservatives of the CDU fit right in there. Good riddance.
I never said a large chunk of Green Party members were pedophiles or that most members of Bag SchwuP were. But its clear the then Green leadership tacitly tolerated pedophiles.
Ignoring the various environmental sideeffects of at certain renewable energy types (such as making solar panels), its clear that Germany would be even less dependent on fossil fuels were nuclear power actually embraced, as is the case with neighbour France.
Actually I’m against multiculturalism in virtually all cases-the success of the US lay in being able to incorporate most ethnic immigrant groups into its “melting pot” and assimilating them into the mainstream of American life. And looking up the “immigrant stock” statistic, that apparently includes the ethnic Germans who were expelled from Eastern Europe after World War 2 and their descendants.
The question is how serious is this Othering? Is it enough to seem them as disproportiontae beneficiaries of social welfare legislation? That’s partially the case (it seems to me) in Italy, for the Northern Italians.
Because 1) most nonwhite immigration came to Canada fairly recently thus after much of the infrastructure of the Canadian welfare state was built up, 2) immigrant populations to Canada were disproportionately middle-class, and 3) no history of slavery and as a result not large ethnic group that makes up roughly 10-15% of the population that was continuously discriminated against for centuries and consequently socioeconomically disadvantaged (and thus perceived as beneficiaries of social welfare legislation).
What’s the point of bringing up the “overwhelming majority of people” then, if they weren’t at fault?
Key word there: “then”. Who in the current Green leadership was a leader “then”? Who in the current Green leadership[ endorsed paedophilia?
Trivial compared to the side-effects of nuclear…
It would also be falling far short of the “23% by 2020” goal, as France is. France has gone down a different path than Germany. What about that is “anti-science” as you’ve labelled it?
Really? American Exceptionalism is going to be your defence?
No, the actual question you skipped over was - what does this have to do with the Greens in particular, the other major German parties are also multiculturalists.
Quite possibly - remember, they’ve only been a (re-)unified country for a few decades, and before that, only been unified for 150 years. Before that, they were The Germanies.
Because the Green Party as a whole did tolerate and condone those advocating pedophilia legalization.
People still bring up racist doctrines Southern Protestants and Mormons held to until the 1960s and '70s.
Not really if you consider that Chernobyl is more due to late Soviet incompetence than anything else and Fukushima was literally the Worst Case Scenario ™ yet the latter’s effects have been very minimal.
The “23% by 2020” sets up a silly binary between nuclear and other types of clean energy by not including the former.
No, since I think the case is the same with other countries made of largely immigrant populations (ie Australia, Canada etc.).
Despite that, the concept of a German nation has existed since at least Napoleonic times if not before that-in contrast to the American black population which was excluded from the American mainstream until the last half-century.
[/QUOTE]
As well as most of the well-known German college towns and youths in general according to the link.
The US has the same or a similar situation. Minnesota has the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party and North Dakota has the Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party, both of which are the local Democrats. New York has the Conservative Party, which is slightly more separate but often just endorses the Republican candidate. The far-right Constitution Party has operated under several different names in different areas, most prominently in California until 2008 as the “American Independent Party,” which got a lot of their registered members from people who thought that they were declining to state a party! A lot of these names come up from mergers.
Again, in the early 80s. Nothing to do with the Greens today
People are dumb (or linking it to current attitudes, like all that Confederate Flag shit going down now, or Mormon homophobia)
If you think I was only talking about disasters, then solar is looking even better. But I wasn’t, and there are way more environmental costs associated with running nuclear than solar. Way, way more.
It’s specifically about renewable energy. A worthy goal seperate from any “clean” energy (which Nuclear is generally not)
You think multiculturalism has been a success in Australia?
Her party hasn’t actually changed any policies, have they? But I stand corrected, looks like they’re much more “Right” than “Centre”
Wait, when you’re talking multiculturalism in America, you’re talking about a homegrown, natively American culture like Black culture, not, say, Hmong culture?
That doesn’t change the average age of participation. Nor are most college students “hipsters”. Did you mean “hippies”?
Oh yes. I actually only know two Green politicians personally (they are members of our local city council), one is a devout atheist, the other one I don’t know, but he was raised protestant. On the (top) Federal level, politicians will often declare themselves to be “without religious affiliation”. But interestingly enough, there are traditionally quite a few (lay) members of church bodies who are also prominent left-wing politicians.
At least three Chairmen of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) in the past have been members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Mainstream protestantism in Germany is very much associated with the SPD and the Green party. That might be one of the reasons that prominent left-wing politicians would be reluctant to openly mock the Church (at least the protestant Church), since these are their allies.
