8 hours ago, CharonY said:

I would like to add some context here. One is that the report by the Verfassungschutz (Office for the protection of the constitution) does not trigger specific actions. It should be noted that prior, the AfD was classified as a potential danger to the constitution. At that level the Verfassungsschutz is allowed to use intelligence tools, including cultivating confidential informants and other actions. However, there are specific rules of proportionality. The difference now is that the thresholds for these rules are now lowered. I.e. for example surveillance could be intensified now.

However, they the Verfassungsschutz has no say in outlawing the party. This can only be done by the legislative bodies (Bundestag, Bundesrat) or the Government, which requires a process initiated at the Federal Constitutional Court. Such a discussion was initiated last year. I think it is still moving its way through the procedural points. However, it is not about abolishing as such, but just to discuss if it the decision to abolish the AfD should come to a vote. Or I think that is where it is, German procedure is complicated, to say the least.

Obviously, the new classification will add fuel to the debate, but some are rather careful. The reason is if it is unsuccessful, as it happened before with the NPD, it could trigger a huge political fallout. There are some folks who also argue that the AfD at this point is already too big too fail. Again, during the election they were the second-largest party with 20.8%. Now, have increased to about 25% are basically at the same level as the strongest party (CDU, conservatives). Things are bleak, to put it mildly.

The biggest irony here is that the US was involved in drafting the German constitution. Folks like Vance and Rubio are complaining about elements that their predecessors encouraged to have incorporated to stop fascims to rise to power again. We are living in the most stupid bizarro world imaginable.

Useful additional background, thanks.

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm not sure about Germany or Australia; I can only speak to Canada.

The Liberals in Canada, under J Trudeau, saw their support fall to the teens while the Conservatives were at better than 50 %, until D Trump started fiddle-fu*king with tariffs, and within a week, the Liberals, now under M Carney, pulled ahead of the Conservatives, where they stayed for the next three weeks until the election.
This was all before they had presented and costed their platforms; it was all due to the fact that M Carney is perceived as better protection against D Trump's madness, after all he is a businessman and can make the 'best deals' ( how did that work out with D Trump ?).

I'm hopeful that all's for the best, as Carney didn't get a majority, so it won't be 'back to J Trudeau's ways' too soon, and P Poilievre lost his seat in Parliament, but I would consider it interference if the only reason we have the current Government, is the head of our neighbor's Government.

A businessman? Surely the point about Carney is his previous experience as a central banker at times of economic crisis, rather than his dealmaking ability.

Central bankers need to be good economists and people who keep a cool head and choose their words with care, to have impact without provoking unexpected reaction. (Exhibit A, Draghi: "And believe me, it will be enough", delivered with his reptilian stare.) They are also well-connected internationally, something Canada will benefit from as it tries to forge stronger trading links with other countries. Carney is widely respected internationally.

Carney has got off on the right foot, it seems to me, by inviting the King to come and open Parliament. A pointed way to show everyone, Trump included, that Canada is not the USA and has its own identity and traditions. Since Trump, as a wannabe monarch, is impressed by the British Royal Family, this shot across his bows from the King may get through to him.

Edited May 4May 4 by exchemist

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Carney has got off on the right foot, it seems to me, by inviting the King to come and open Parliament. A pointed way to show everyone, Trump included, that Canada is not the USA and has its own identity and traditions. Since Trump, as a wannabe monarch, is impressed by the British Royal Family, this shot across his bows from the King may get through to him.

Like when Volodymyr Zelensky met with the King shortly after Trump and JD Vance berated him in the Oval Office.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

My example was only related to the situation in Canada, where the new Liberal Government has already promised years of much increased deficit spending.
Their previous unchecked immigration policies only served to increase housing costs such that even Canadians could not afford them, never mind new immigrants.
The

Not sure that immigrants causing the price surge in housing is factual. It could be one factor, but there were others, like covid and global supply chain problems, a deficit in housing units that had built up over years of under-building, labor issues etc. That immigrant=housing shortage narrative was certainly peddled here and demonstrably false. (here, in fact, migrant workers were helping alleviate a labor shortage among contractors)

13 hours ago, MigL said:

We should be looking at governing policies, not at the 'label' they assign to their party, nor what they could possibly do because they have the same 'label' as a party in another country.
I would hope we don't become like Americans, who have no idea what policies they are voting for, but go to the polling station and simply tick off the same party that they have always voted for, sometimes for several generations.

Agreed. What was so sad about 2024 was that some Independent voters (our largest voting bloc in fact) went and voted for Trump because they had been duped by propaganda that contained false allegations about Democrats. So they did actually make a shift based on policy, but unfortunately on false beliefs about said policies - the failure of legacy journalism continues to lay waste to American civic understanding)

50 minutes ago, KJW said:

Like when Volodymyr Zelensky met with the King shortly after Trump and JD Vance berated him in the Oval Office.

..and was treated with appropriate respect by the monarch.....

But in the Canada case there is aded, pointed constitutional significance, of course. Charles is actually King of Canada.

Edited May 4May 4 by exchemist

Australia will be a great opportunity to see how a minimalist campaign like the Democrats last US Presidential election, e.g. "we've been in power for 1 term so re elect us again because we're going to do all these things that we didn't already do, but could have", would have turned out.

On 5/3/2025 at 7:01 PM, KJW said:

This is a questionnaire sent by the Trump administration to Australian universities receiving US funding:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25595847-questionnaire-for-us-research-partners/

Oh god