Link to thread 
REEE THIS IS RUSSIAS FAULT edition
"Why are they hecking voting 
against my their interests???"
"I can't believe 
my people are voting in this Nazi scum again."
This cute twinks posts in /r/196, I can bet my entire coke stash on him neither being working 
class or ever identifying as German 
irl. Neighbor 
who is your people, child 
molesters????
"Umm sweaty... This is illegal 
and like you are r-slurred 
if you don't vote like Plebbit..."
breaking? Supply and demand? No, illegal 
is actually 
in the interest of the Slavshits working "Ummm I'm German and I'm tanned and people hate me checkmate???"
Yeah I'm sure it's cause you got the mayoest of tans Snowroach.
RUSSIA 
RUSSIA
RUSSIA
"Kinda thinking 
that attack 
(Mannheim) was planned 
by russia 
now."
What are Redditors 
gonna 
do when all of a sudden the US and Russia 
vanish 
into nothingness? Blame China 
of course.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Entire thread is full of redditors blaming the voters and calling them stupid. They never learn.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They'll just make opposing parties illegal in order to save democracy. At least Germany wants to
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is a meme waiting to happen.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"Proven illegal" is an absolutely baffling phrase in general, but especially in this context. We're talking about politicians running for office. If they win, they'll become the government. They'll make the laws. If something is currently illegal and they think it should be legal, they would just go ahead and do that.
Do Redditors think "laws" in the context of a code of law are the same as "laws" in the context of scientific law? They're an immutable force of the universe, and the purpose of a legislature isn't to make laws, it's to discover the laws that are inherently there?
That would actually explain a lot about how these !r-slurs view the world. If laws are natural phenomena, then if a law that's been implemented by a government is in accordance with natural law, it's objectively correct; if it's not in accordance with natural law, it's objectively incorrect.
Of course, that's just religious morality with a truly terrible understanding of both science and government substituted for scripture and clergy, but that's not surprising. As us !grillers are well aware, wingcucks are like that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why do they have to make a gayer form of religion.
Follower of Christ
Tech lover, IT Admin, heckin pupper lover and occasionally troll. I hold back feelings or opinions, right or wrong because I dislike conflict.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Its illegal to be rude to migrants because of r-slurred treaties we shouldnt have signed that trump national law, but nobody ever considers that you can withdraw from treaties
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Northen europe and parts of US loves tules and regulations. They think them as divine law.
Back in early days of ukrain war. People were celebrating how they managed to checkmate russia becouse they didnt declare war. And that limited what they could do.
Then russian goverment just ignored law and did what was necessary for them.
Whole thing was bizzare considering whole world had seen 4 years of trump and 8 years of obama. Obama was king of breaking all the rulers and making new up as needed.
He bombed US citizen and justification was. Shitty dad.
He bombed al shabab guys left and right. Then us military ended up capturing one of them and nobody knew what to do with guy becouse there was nothing in place to prosecute him. Becouse there was nothing that justified anything against al shabab back then.
If you used obama justifications as precedents. You could justify bombing of twiter users who talk shit about US goverment and invade any country simpy with presidental order.
Trump did what ever he wanted. And people were going nuts how he can do that.
Yet people think law. Rules. Norms and regulation as divine law.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
You typed all of that without thinking about states with a strong separation of powers and constitution. If Joe Biden decided to throw all of us in FEMA camps tomorrow it would be illegal for several reasons, most notably because it would conflict with rights established in the US Constitution. Furthermore it might be illegal because of laws passed by the Legislative branch.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But we're not talking about one guy in one position, we're talking about the European Parliament as a whole being run by the AfD and their various equivalents in other countries. Which would presumably mean those same parties are either currently in control, or will soon be in control, of the majority of the constituent nations of the European Union's national legislatures.
The closest American equivalent isn't a president issuing a bunch of executive orders, it's the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives all being dominated by one party, while a supermajority of governorships and state legislatures are also held by that same party. Even if the courts somehow weren't controlled by that party, they could change that it an instant. The only thing holding them back would be their ability to coordinate within their own party.
Fortunately, that's exactly why we'll never have to worry about this problem in America.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
maybe, but surely there is some form of constitution in place to limit the power of the state???
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In Europe? Not really. The idea that the founding document of a nation lays out what the government can do and anything that isn't mentioned is, by default, something they can't do is very American. As is the idea that changing that document is a big deal and is only done when absolutely necessary.
For instance, in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, they have an entrenched clause that prevents removing certain articles, but they can be amended. Plus, a lot of them are very open to interpretation. You don't even have to go past Article 2 to see that.
You can be who you want, so long as you don't "offend moral law", and your rights can only be interfered with "pursuant to a law". Those are some pretty hefty caveats to stick right there at the start.
Compare that to our First Amendment.
No caveats, no equivocation, no bullshit. Just pure, unadulterated freedom.
Germans long for the boot. They can't help themselves. It's in their inferior Mayo blood.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You are so r-slurred @Grue wouldn't have believed it until @Grue witnessed it just now
@Grue love sucking peepee
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
βOnly educated people I mean people that think like me like token blacks and college educated whites vote correctly β
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context