American Politics

[kkck]

I never said there's no such development of terrorism in Developed countries; it is more likely that we'll see more terrorism development in developing countries than it is seen in developed ones.

That is not true at all. The US has plenty of terrorism, enough that even radicalized ISIS guys are not even the bulk of it. Sovereign citizens, white supremacist... Sovereign citizens are said by the FBI to be a greater threat than radicalized extremist and kill a remarkable amount of cops every year. Let alone that they have 100000 supporters... Several developed nations are at risk from ISIS extremist but it is not like it's foreign people that are carrying out the attacks, it's residents that get radicalized.

There are developed nations with plenty of terrorism just as there are underdeveloped nations without a speck of it.

 

[GrySun]

I have no issue with 90% of what you've said here in this current discussion, but this one I have to object to. I understand that hate speech is treated differently in Europe, especially in Germany. The aws seem ultra-sensitive regarding things like Holocaust-denial, etc. But I think imprisoning people for such things is downright ridiculous. The greatest enemy of hate is free speech. If hateful ideas exist, but no one knows it due to them being illegal, how does that actually improve society in any way? Moronic, hateful people should be able to say whatever they feel, and they'll reap what they've sowed, be shouted down, have their careers ruined and ridiculed, usually justly. Censoringship is never reasonable IMO, and for the US in particular, it isn't realistic at all. Nor can I see it being a step in the right direction.

Eh, Merkel had a comedian imprisoned for talking badly about Erdogan iirc. Free speech in Germany is kinda fucked atm.

 

[shionoro]

Eh, Merkel had a comedian imprisoned for talking badly about Erdogan iirc. Free speech in Germany is kinda fucked atm.

Well that is not what happened. Böhmermann ist not imprisoned and never will be. She allowed a process to be opened against him. A process she does not lead, but an independend court who has to decide whether it was actually insulting or not what he did.
And this process would have happened anyway, whether merkel agreed to it or not.
The only difference this made was that there is a theoretical possibility now with merkels agreement that he could be impirsoned, but everybody including merkel knows that this is not a real possibility.
The maximum he might have to do is pay a fee, and there were cases of that before the erdogan thing, too, where comedians had to pay or change their program if it was ruled to be insulting (atze schröder is one example for that).

Böhmermann's show will restart in just 21 days, too. It is not like he was dropped from grace by the ZDF or faced any real consequences.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

So Trump has endorsed Paul Ryan (and John McCain), now the real question is will they do the same? I'd understand McCain's position, since the stuffs he said to McCain is really harmful and all. Gotta feel sorry for Paul Ryan, and it hasn't even been a full year since he became Speaker of the House (I guess John Boehner is laughing his ass off that he doesn't have to deal with such headache).

 

[shionoro]

If they had balls of steel, they would endorse themselves for 2020.

 

[Franckie]

It would be a pretty great turn if all of this desaster of an election process would lead to more than two parties in the senate.

This development may be beneficial if the USA had a parliamentary system but with the presidential system we have it may be better just to stick with two parties. It ensures one political party remains semi-competent in case the other party goes off in the deep-end, like what has happened with the Republican Party. And one of the reasons Republicans have become so dysfunctional is because they have a "party within a party", the Tea Party.

 

[shionoro]

This development may be beneficial if the USA had a parliamentary system but with the presidential system we have it may be better just to stick with two parties. It ensures one political party remains semi-competent in case the other party goes off in the deep-end, like what has happened with the Republican Party. And one of the reasons Republicans have become so dysfunctional is because they have a "party within a party", the Tea Party.

That isnt that a reason FOR more parties? It would prevent something like that.
People can still vote either dem or rep in the presidential elections, but it would make sense to go for third parties in the senate

 

[Spirit]

 

[xi0]

So why can't the same apply to Islamic terrorists? In the US, nonwhites are grouped together as this or that, but for some reason white people don't have to deal with this. One of them goes on a shooting spree, he's a lone wolf. If a black guy goes on a shooting spree, you'll have a group of people saying they wished black people would go back to Africa or something (only time I saw someone say this was on FB when BLM had their first protests). Islamic terrorists might have mental illnesses too that make them want to kill others or believe that they will be rewarded for heinous acts, whether or not they live.

Who said it wasn't? Mental illness is always a potential factor of some sort when it comes to violent criminal behavior.

If the killer's motivations don't lineup with even the basic definition of terrorism, not calling them terrorists isn't racism. I mean, the act of Terrorism doesn't even have it's roots in the Islamic world anyway, that's a more recent development. Modern terrorism is, in principle, the killing of innocents in order to reinforce or promote a political or religious ideology. In the case of Islamic Terrorism, it checks off both of those boxes. But honestly, trying to seek some sort of social justice in placing a heinous act in the correct "box" has to be a nearly pointless exercise anyway, no? At least, that's sort of how I see it.

I remember an argument in another thread in this section where one member said the term was defined to just practitioners of Islam, whereas few of us said it applied to anyone regardless of race. It's the way people use it that has an implied meaning of racism or Islamophobic. If a white person kills multiple immigrant-looking people just to oppose legalizing illegal immigrants, then that would be considered terrorism. However, majority, including the media, would deny otherwise. In contrast, a Muslim doing a similar thing would be considered a terrorist.

That was Hegemonkhan or whoever (I could be wrong, of course). Probably someone who had only ever heard the word "terrorism" after 9/11. The usefulness of an opinion oftentimes comes down to the source, after all.

There are plenty of examples of non-Islamic terrorism, but mass killings aren't automatically labeled as such. Sure, there can be someone like Anders Breivik who was clearly politically motivated, or Dylan Roof, who was at least racially motivated. But a lot of this has to do with what is considered a "mass shooting" in the first place. It's definition is different depending on who you ask and where it happens, and that also has an effect on statistics on mass killings as well.

Muslims who commit mass killings are considered terrorists because.....they almost universally admit to being terrorists.

To be honest, I don't see how this is a good thing at all. The US already has a far right wing party with the republicans. The libertarian party isn't a better or even comparable alternative, they are merely a different breed of far right wing nutjob. Just look at their policy proposals....
https://www.lp.org/issues

Variety is the the spice of life. Different voices at a debate can almost definitely not be seen as a negative thing. That's why I said I hope Jill Stein would be included as well. I was only specific on the Libertarian candidates because I had watched the Town Hall. They're doing a similar one for the Green Party Ticket as well.

Eh, Merkel had a comedian imprisoned for talking badly about Erdogan iirc. Free speech in Germany is kinda fucked atm.

Talking badly in a racial way, then? Any specifics? Since The topic was about hatespeech. Idk, personally I feel like something can't really be considered offensive if one finds it funny. But even then, there's a difference between something being indecent morally and being an offense worthy of legal action.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Hillary's face is priceless tho.

But what isn't funny is that this picture is true.

 

[M3J]

Show me which news source on TV or paper called Brevik or Roof a terrorist. A source like Buzzfeed or Huffington Post would, but I highly doubt most news sources would even bother to label them as anything but mentally addled lone wolf.

 

[kkck]

Variety is the the spice of life. Different voices at a debate can almost definitely not be seen as a negative thing. That's why I said I hope Jill Stein would be included as well. I was only specific on the Libertarian candidates because I had watched the Town Hall. They're doing a similar one for the Green Party Ticket as well.

What variety? The US is a country where to begin with the left virtually does not exist. Even US progressive would at the most be center in several other countries. Republicans as is are a far right wing party. So what variety would be added by libertarians? You are adding a further right wing party in a country that is already extremely right wing. Most republicans wouldn't even object to a good bunch of the stuff libertarians are supporting. Let alone the disaster that would be libertarian policies being implemented.... At least to me the idea that libertarians add any variety to a debate is either false or the equivalent to adding cyanide to a buffet for the sake of variety...

It's an entirely different situation from the green party, which at least is meaningfully to the left of the democrat party at least.

Quite frankly, I can't even imagine a libertarian in a debate... The answer to every question would be either to eliminate government, eliminate taxes or privatize something. Just look at their website, their proposal to handle climate change is literally to reduce or eliminate government. I literally laugh at that, it's comical that these people are actually serious about this.

Another fun bit from these ridiculous cartoons that somehow scaped 2d world...
https://www.lp.org/issues/family-budget

I read that and it seem pretty clear they literally do not get how money works.

More than two-hundred Libertarians are currently holding public office. Each of them is working today to keep the government from taking any more of your money. And each of them believes that if government were limited to protecting us against force and fraud, then most Americans would be better off. Less government corruption. No more expensive "boondoggle" projects. No more "special interest" favors at your expense.

This part stroked me as odd in particular. Read a certain way and it kinda seems like they are working to keep government underfunded or something. Did they admit to sabotaging government? Maybe that particular interpretation is taking the paragraph to an extreme though.... On the other hand we are talking about their website making the point they have real life ron swansons around.

 

[shionoro]

Talking badly in a racial way, then? Any specifics? Since The topic was about hatespeech. Idk, personally I feel like something can't really be considered offensive if one finds it funny. But even then, there's a difference between something being indecent morally and being an offense worthy of legal action.

As i pointed out in my earlier post, he is not going to jail for that. What he did however is interesting as a courtcase:

There is a german satire show, extra3, and they made a mocksong about erdogan, which was rather harmless (so no slurs, they just rendered him as a dictator).
Erdogan then demanded the tv station (second german state tv ZDF) to take it down. The ZDF did not comply, erdogan got mad and merkel basically said nothing except 'oh well it is satire' and didnt play the 'defender of justice'.
While erdogan was still mad, a german comedian, Böhmermann, made a lot of jokes about erdogan in his show.
In one segment, he disclaimed a poem he wrote with the following: Hey Erdogan, the extra 3 song is not insulting. I am going to explain you what is insulting with this poem. This is REALLY something you should never say in TV or anywhere else. you'd totally get busted for that, because it is tasteless and just gross.

He then proceeded with following poem (in german, translated):

Spoiler

Sod-dumb, cowardly and hesitant
Is Erdogan the President

His boner smells like Döner
Even a pig's fart smells finer

He's the man who punches girls
While wearing a bloody rubber mask

Things he loves the most
Is shagging goats
And oppressing minorities

[Böhmermann then throws in that this kind of criticism would be illegal]

Kicking Kurds, beating up Christians
While watching child porn

And in the evening instead of a nap
Fellatio with a hundred sheep

Erdogan is all things considered
A President with a tiny wang

[he repeats this is an example of what would be illegal´]

Every Turk can be heard whispering:
This dumb pig has got shrivel-balls
From Ankara to Istanbul
Everyone knows this man is gay

Perverted and zoophilic
Recep Fritzl Priklopil
His head as empty as his balls
The star guest on every gang-bang party
Until his tiny wang starts to burn while having a piss
That's Reccep Erdogan

Well you can imagine Erdogan's reaction to that one. He sued in every way he could and cried for merkel to do something. Merkel then critisized the poem as 'deliberately hurting' and allowed a courtcase via an age old law about defaming foreign presidents or kings (which has basically no effect except the symbolical one, it does not really hurt Böhermann).

Since then, the courtcase is opened about whether this is satire or plainly insulting.
Böhmermann's outlook is good. If he gets a penalty, it will be a financial fine, but i doubt it.
German (and european) laws about insults are much stricter than in the US, but when it comes to art a lot changes There were also cases of TV hosts openly calling one of their guests an 'asshole' and he got no punishment because the judge said 'the tone of the show is not serious and the guest should have known it before'.

 

[xi0]

Show me which news source on TV or paper called Brevik or Roof a terrorist. A source like Buzzfeed or Huffington Post would, but I highly doubt most news sources would even bother to label them as anything but mentally addled lone wolf.

Buzzfeed and Huffington Post are reliable, unbiased sources, but Fox News isn't? I didn't really have American media in mind here dude, I'm not sure of many sources that are actually "fair and balanced".

I mean, I wasn't talking about the media's immediate reaction to incidents like this in the first place. Unfortunately, attacks in the West that make headlines do tend to be perpetrated by Islamic extremists. And I don't think how you think the media labels it is relevant. Are we supposed to not call Islamic extremists terrorists because Fox News wouldn't call someone like Breivik or Roof terrorists but called them right-wing extremists and/or neo-Nazis instead? (as if these have any more of a positive connotation) In the pre-9/11 world, more people in the west would know what the terms right-wing extremism/fascism/nazism meant. The same can't be said about jihadists or islamism. Old habits die hard perhaps. But the almost "every other week" occurrence of attacks by people pledging allegiance to the Islamic State is certainly doing more to paint the picture than whatever the hell Fox News' talking heads have to say about it.

What variety? The US is a country where to begin with the left virtually does not exist. Even US progressive would at the most be center in several other countries. Republicans as is are a far right wing party.

I think that sort of depends on what your vision of what an American Progressive looks like (it ain't Hillary Clinton or Obama btw...)

You are adding a further right wing party in a country that is already extremely right wing.

I don't see how the things they might have in common with the GOP makes them more significantly more right wing than the things they have in common with the Democrats makes them more left wing. The political spectrum doesn't have a single axis. (unless you're referring to them both being former Republican Governors?).

It's an entirely different situation from the green party, which at least is meaningfully to the left of the democrat party at least.

Well, I wasn't singling out the Libertarian ticket intentionally, it just brought up the idea that more candidates should be included in general election debates. I don't know where this 15% polling requirement even came from. Oh wait, yeah I do...it almost certainly benefits the GOP's and Democratic Party's stranglehold on the political landscape in this country. It's of no benefit to the actual fucking electorate.

This part stroked me as odd in particular. Read a certain way and it kinda seems like they are working to keep government underfunded or something. Did they admit to sabotaging government? Maybe that particular interpretation is taking the paragraph to an extreme though.... On the other hand we are talking about their website making the point they have real life ron swansons around.

Well, I do know that a lot of the "fringe" in the Libertarian Party weren't happy with their nominee, as his contenders were...........a bit batshit crazy.

From the impression I get, Johnson-Weld are against the expansion of the Federal Government, not the State. But they're still supporters of civil liberties and science. Maybe they're completely full of shit and being moderate for the sake of getting on national TV, but they almost seemed somewhat sensible next to Trump's speeches or Hillary's history.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Aug 8, 2016 ---

Well you can imagine Erdogan's reaction to that one. He sued in every way he could and cried for merkel to do something. Merkel then critisized the poem as 'deliberately hurting' and allowed a courtcase via an age old law about defaming foreign presidents or kings (which has basically no effect except the symbolical one, it does not really hurt Böhermann).

Well, I think, regardless of how Grysun characterized it, it's pretty dumb. At worst, it's slander. And if someone came on TV here and slandered Erdogan, what laws would they be breaking? Well, none really. Why should Erdogan have any kind of influence in another country? Is it strictly for political reasons? Turks are the largest ethnic minority in Germany IIRC. But I mean, we're all NATO states, so it isn't like things are cold between us. Idk, I can't tell you whether it was humorous or not, since it's German Humor () .....but yeah, bringing up older laws just to make an example of someone seems weird.

Since then, the courtcase is opened about whether this is satire or plainly insulting.
Böhmermann's outlook is good. If he gets a penalty, it will be a financial fine, but i doubt it.

Well, I think stating that his "outlook is good" is the issue here for me. Having to pay a fine for saying something slanderous about a foreign leader...well...seems foreign to me (no pun intended) . Saying it outside of a nightclub or in a class of kindergartners would probably be considered indecent. But as a part of a comedian's act? Meh.

 

[shionoro]

Well, I think stating that his "outlook is good" is the issue here for me. Having to pay a fine for saying something slanderous about a foreign leader...well...seems foreign to me (no pun intended) . Saying it outside of a nightclub or in a class of kindergartners would probably be considered indecent. But as a part of a comedian's act? Meh.

Well there are some good reasons for these laws.
For example: 2001 an (at that time) very influential TV host made fun of an underage girl.
She was 16 and had won in a small model competition and her name was Lisa Loch (so lisa hole in german) and he basically simply made fun of her name (which is kind of cheap humour to begin with). But not only once at a throwaway line, he did it 4 episodes in a row in a pretty nasty manner with clips from the competition. It was really bullying at that point and the girl got harassed in real life after that by classmates and even strangers.

She then sued him and he had to pay. I find that reasonable. This has nothing to do with art or free speech, it is simply bullying against someone powerless.

The Erdogan case of course is very different. Erdogan is no underage girl which gets bullied, he is a person of political power and the act itself from böhmermann had actually some wit and intention behind it of critiquing erdogans actions (so it was in fact satire, exspecially with the context of the other segments serrounding this one).

Well, I think, regardless of how Grysun characterized it, it's pretty dumb. At worst, it's slander. And if someone came on TV here and slandered Erdogan, what laws would they be breaking? Well, none really. Why should Erdogan have any kind of influence in another country? Is it strictly for political reasons? Turks are the largest ethnic minority in Germany IIRC. But I mean, we're all NATO states, so it isn't like things are cold between us. Idk, I can't tell you whether it was humorous or not, since it's German Humor () .....but yeah, bringing up older laws just to make an example of someone seems weird.

Böhmermann's show is actually really funny, it has to be seen in context tho.

And ya, turkish are the largest minority, but this has nothing to do with it. It all comes down to the EU-Turkey deal which merkel wants to protect with almost all means. The deal was very fresh at that point and it was hard to get it to begin with.
So in merkel's reasoning, why would she sacrifice that deal for a symbol? Whether Böhmermann gets convicted or not has nothing to do with that old law. The law simply opens the theoretical possibility of jail time, but that possibility is outside of what can actually happen (because the offense is minor).

What merkel basically did was giving up the responsibility to decide to a court. If what böhmermann did was in fact against the law (so i guess she thinks), then it is not her fault, and if it isn't, then what's wrong with letting the court decide that?
Basically, she wanted to appease Erdogan and didnt see anything to gain from telling him off. She didnt need the inner political approvement (which she partially lost because germans didnt like what she did) but she dearly needed the Turkey deal and also thought the EU dearly needed it to calm down in the time in which the refugee crisis hit the worst.

Oh, and nato states can be PRETTY cold to each other. The US turkey relations are horrible right now, and the german turkish relations too.
The german US relations were really cold at the time of iraq war, too.

 

[xi0]

She then sued him and he had to pay. I find that reasonable. This has nothing to do with art or free speech, it is simply bullying against someone powerless.

She then sued him and he had to pay. I find that reasonable. This has nothing to do with art or free speech, it is simply bullying against someone powerless.

That's a completely different situation really. Suing someone for damages related to slander and such is considered Tort, and isn't the same as a case being brought against someone on the behalf of the state, with the risk of criminal conviction. But maybe this comes down to the differences between civil and common law, I simply don't have the knowledge there...but I somehow doubt they're much different in this area (forgive my ignorance otherwise though).

So in merkel's reasoning, why would she sacrifice that deal for a symbol?

Well, I imagine she has no legislative power, but the notion of a foreign dictator influencing such a thing is something I wouldn't be thrilled with if I was German. If a comedian here made fun of one of Iran's leaders while John Kerry was working with them last year, no one would have given a shit. (maybe not the best comparison...but yeah).

Oh, and nato states can be PRETTY cold to each other. The US turkey relations are horrible right now, and the german turkish relations too.
The german US relations were really cold at the time of iraq war, too.

I meant relatively - as in we have a treaty with them for the purpose of mutual defense for a reason. Can't really say the same thing about countries outside of it.

 

[M3J]

Buzzfeed and Huffington Post are reliable, unbiased sources, but Fox News isn't? I didn't really have American media in mind here dude, I'm not sure of many sources that are actually "fair and balanced".

I mean, I wasn't talking about the media's immediate reaction to incidents like this in the first place. Unfortunately, attacks in the West that make headlines do tend to be perpetrated by Islamic extremists. And I don't think how you think the media labels it is relevant. Are we supposed to not call Islamic extremists terrorists because Fox News wouldn't call someone like Breivik or Roof terrorists but called them right-wing extremists and/or neo-Nazis instead? (as if these have any more of a positive connotation) In the pre-9/11 world, more people in the west would know what the terms right-wing extremism/fascism/nazism meant. The same can't be said about jihadists or islamism. Old habits die hard perhaps. But the almost "every other week" occurrence of attacks by people pledging allegiance to the Islamic State is certainly doing more to paint the picture than whatever the hell Fox News' talking heads have to say about it.

Nah, I know those two are liberally biased, but I can't say how they deal with facts and reporting in a fair manner, as a lot of news reporting they do seem on the level with me (though likely not so with conservatives). Maybe they have an equivalent of Fox News claiming all Muslims are terrorists or some shit. I do consider Think Progressive to be unbiased and reliable, at least more so than most sources. I'm thinking of American media as we're talking about Americans and all... specifically the offline ones. It's easy as hell to find liberal and conservative sources online, but harder to find liberal views offline.

No, we're supposed to call anyone who commits acts of terrorism as terrorists, not as mentally fucked up lone wolves. I have not seen any paper say the Orlando shooter was a mentally unstable lone wolf, nor any paper call Roof a terrorist. Would be odd for me to have a problem with calling Islamic extremists terrorists when I call them terrorists as well, eh.

 

[shionoro]

@xi0
It is a very different situation. But it was not slander. Raab said nothing that was not true, he just mocked her name, made up other funny possible names for her if she became a porn actress and so on and so on.
There is not inherently a difference to what Böhmermann did to erdogan. The only difference is (depending on how the court rules) that one was satire and is protected as such and one was not.
In case of Lisa Loch, the court ruled that satire does not protect such a harsh attack on the personal rights of a person.
The reason why this could be different in Erdogan's case is that the whole context of the show is different, that erdogan is a figure of public interest and that there was a clear connection to a political topic which got mocked in a satirical way (erdogan suing everybody).

That said, this is only true for the civil process (on an unrelated note insult can be a reason for criminal conviction in germany in other cases, too. Erdogan sued for that too (which is another paragraph than what merkel allowed him) but was denied already).

All in all, no matter on which way erdogan sues, it comes down to whether the court rules it as legitimate satire or rules it as an insult hidden in a satire show.

This decision has nothing to do with Merkel. What has to do with merkels decision is the following that she allowed him to sue more easily for a criminal offense. Erdogan sued for everything he could, but this special offense was one that merkel had to allow, and she did.
I was not happy with that decision either, but i can understand it. She said: A chancellor has no place in deciding whether something is a crime or not, and thus a court should do that.
After that she promised (and followed through) with erasing that paragraph so something like that does not happen again.

The thing is that, in the US, a paragraph like that does not exist and what böhmermann did is protected by your law.
If Erdogan was a german resident, he could have sued Böhmermann the way merkel allowed him anyway. It is not something that is completely alien in german law to sue someone for what böhmermann did. If merkel had not allowed it, she would have forbidden Erdogan to enact a right he would have had as a german citizen. And then Erdogan could have rightfully asked why she would do that.
Then it would in fact have been merkel's decision to say 'well i dont think it was insulting'. And diplomatically, that would have been a disaster for her.
It could have been then that merkel denied erdogan for suing for something that is forbidden in german law.
Like that, the court will decide whether it is or not.

 

[kkck]

I think that sort of depends on what your vision of what an American Progressive looks like (it ain't Hillary Clinton or Obama btw...)


I don't see how the things they might have in common with the GOP makes them more significantly more right wing than the things they have in common with the Democrats makes them more left wing. The political spectrum doesn't have a single axis. (unless you're referring to them both being former Republican Governors?).


Well, I wasn't singling out the Libertarian ticket intentionally, it just brought up the idea that more candidates should be included in general election debates. I don't know where this 15% polling requirement even came from. Oh wait, yeah I do...it almost certainly benefits the GOP's and Democratic Party's stranglehold on the political landscape in this country. It's of no benefit to the actual fucking electorate.


Well, I do know that a lot of the "fringe" in the Libertarian Party weren't happy with their nominee, as his contenders were...........a bit batshit crazy.

From the impression I get, Johnson-Weld are against the expansion of the Federal Government, not the State. But they're still supporters of civil liberties and science. Maybe they're completely full of shit and being moderate for the sake of getting on national TV, but they almost seemed somewhat sensible next to Trump's speeches or Hillary's history.

I was thinking of bernie sanders when I wrote that, not obama or democrats. Bernie sanders simply wouldn't be on the left if he was in, say, germany or england, he'd be a center candidate. Obama in turn would be a right wing candidate.

Come on, there is simply no rational way a libertarian of any sort could be considered to be leftwing. At its essence the right wing left wing debate is about the extent of the role of government, the rest of issues are merely stuff which is arbitrarily assigned to a side over time and can change without affecting how left or right wing the party in question is. From a libertarian perspective the role is barely short of zero. The few things they might have in common with a moderate or a progressive do not make them less right wing or even merely as right wing as republicans.Libertarians are effectively anti progressives who take free market and supply side economics to a cartoonish extreme.

Well, certainly the 15% thing benefits the traditional parties. However that is besides the point I am trying to make, my point was about the libertarian movement growing not being a good thing solely because the vast majority of their positions are insane to the point where generic republicans look sane in comparison.

 

[xi0]

No, we're supposed to call anyone who commits acts of terrorism as terrorists, not as mentally fucked up lone wolves. I have not seen any paper say the Orlando shooter was a mentally unstable lone wolf, nor any paper call Roof a terrorist. Would be odd for me to have a problem with calling Islamic extremists terrorists when I call them terrorists as well, eh.

Who's "we"? I mean, I will grant that some people are quicker to label attacks as Islamic terrorism before the facts are out (which proper media outlets aren't supposed to do, but that's besides the point), but people are merely playing the odds. That's just the world we live in. Getting it wrong could indicate prejudice, but that doesn't mean there's some sort of social injustice going on IMO. Killers are killers... Someone assuming that an incident is Islamic terrorism is not the same thing as trying to say any Muslim could snap and turn into a terrorist, if that's the sort of implication you're getting at.

It is a very different situation. But it was not slander. Raab said nothing that was not true, he just mocked her name, made up other funny possible names for her if she became a porn actress and so on and so on.

Well, it doesn't need to be slander in order for someone to sue here either, but there's no criminality involved really.

All in all, no matter on which way erdogan sues, it comes down to whether the court rules it as legitimate satire or rules it as an insult hidden in a satire show.

But I was asking why Erdogan is even allowed to sue in German court...

Well, certainly the 15% thing benefits the traditional parties. However that is besides the point I am trying to make, my point was about the libertarian movement growing not being a good thing solely because the vast majority of their positions are insane to the point where generic republicans look sane in comparison.

Well, like I've said repeatedly, I wasn't limiting it to just the Libertarian party. I just thought they made a decent impression, especially considering who the GOP candidate is.