Don’t you think it makes more sense to actually discuss the article linked here instead of having a general discussion about party politics and what media allegedly prefers who?
Especially since the article contains opinions that completely align with the commentator who criticised it so harshly.
they beg for return of the debt-brake-fetish party
As stated above: this article criticises the debt brake as “absurd”.
I read your comment and I read the article.
Somehow I’m under the impression that you either read a different article or didn’t read the article properly.
It even also criticises the debt brake just as you.
Russia won’t become any less dangerous even if we were to appease to them.
Gee, the tankie tank spilled again…
I’m not sure whether it’s enough for the car to be built in China or whether it needs to be from a Chinese-owned brand as well.
Given that you cannot build cars in China without having to go into a joint venture with a Chinese company that probably won’t matter much to them… :)
Even better: given that the Chinese automotive industry is highly invested in EVs whereas the demand for (premium) ICE cars is largely provided by foreign companies such as BMW, have a good guess whether China will switch its own market rules accordingly when it sees time fit for its own industry.
Thanks, but no thanks. Next.
Which is why we should either ban them or force them to make their algorithm public. Being a Chinese company, you have to be very naive not to assume close ties to the Chinese state. As a system rival, China is more opponent than partner and allowing them to operate such a network of influence, while they tightly prohibit any unwanted information themselves is foolish.
It’s time to tighten the grip.
They did waste vast amounts of own men and material when deciding to enter Ukraine to take a quick “short stroll” that somehow now already takes over 900 days. Wouldn’t be the first time they shoot themselves in the foot proper.
Why not both? ;)
“Hey! Hey! Notice me! I’m edgy! Hey!”
Perhaps I could say what I really think here, after all!
There’s only one way to find out.
I’m all in for disrupting bubbles here and there to prevent too strong biases from building. And sure, I guess you’ll collect a bunch of downvotes for your opinions. But as long as you stick to the rules, those comments should stay there, no matter the downvotes.
I would agree if the mods were to actually delete comments calling for e.g. stricter immigration laws or quicker deportations of rejected asylum seekers. This didn’t happen here and what was deleted wasn’t a contribution to discussion but generalising bs.
Feel free to contribute to the discussion with your own points of view. Those can be controversial without violating the community rules.
But since they are to be cut down eventually nevertheless, them being cut down now for a construction site isn’t as bad as the article makes it seem. Especially since Tesla was obliged to plant trees for an actual forest (i.e. diverse species) as compensation, which wouldn’t have happened otherwise. So in the end, cutting down these trees even creates more forest than before.
“I like autocrats if others are the victims!”
…which is a sentiment almost unanimously spread across Germany. I.e. also including those that align themselves with one of the partaking parties. No party politics (conservative spin?) here. Also, you omitted the part where it stated that such a coalition would in no case be fit to stand up against Trump, which is the point made to justify the opening “long overdue death”. Would you disagree with this assessment?
Your cited passage:
Of course the Union had a blast sueing the coalition. But it wasn’t who sued them that made it illegal but the constitution. In my world, it shouldn’t matter who sues to determine if something is illegal or not.
Well, yes it does! The traffic light coalition wasn’t willing/able to overcome the debt brake and exploded due to this issue. So now a new government is needed. I see no party politics here. Could well be a new government with Olaf and others willing to cancel the debt brake.
This is coming entirely from you and is not part of the article in the slightest. As stated several times already, it even makes clear claims against the debt brake.
Exactly. The one being so strongly agitated by this article is you and I really wonder what you read into it that it makes you so angry. This isn’t a conservatives vs social democrats text in the slightest but instead makes some general yet interesting points about the state of affairs in Europe given the arising challenges in our future.
A future, mind you, where it is vital for us to stand together against pressures from the outside instead of being completely self-absorbed and losing ourselves in petty disputes. Which is why I find it so strange that you chose to be offended instead of trying to listen to the author.