Gesichert rechtsextrem ist erst mal nur die Beurteilung einer Behörde (Landesverfassungsschutz) also der Exekutive.
Das ist erstens noch nicht umfänglich juristisch geprüft und zweitens kann die Exekutive nicht einfach so Parteien verbieten.
Die kann nur einen Antrag dazu stellen, das finale Urteil fällt dann die Judikative in Form des BVerfG.

Die Freibeträge sind da außerhalb von Verwandschaft ersten Grades eher niedrig.

Ich wär bereit reiche Erbinnen zu heiraten.

wieder aus allen Parlamenten fliegen

Wieder ist das Stichwort.
Dann setzen sie halt mal wieder eine Legislaturperiode aus.
In ein paar Jahren hat das Wahlvieh alles vergessen, Warnungen wie scheiße diese Partei ist werden in den Wind geschlagen, steht ja schließlich nicht im Wahlprogramm und dann geht der ganze Bums von vorne los.
Und ja, ich spreche hier aus frustrierter Erfahrung.

Wow, ein Artikel der tatsächlich mal die Quelle verlinkt.
Für die, die sich die Mühe nicht machen wollen ihn rauszusuchen, hier der eingereichte Antrag:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024XC02873&qid=1719828650727

If it is truly anonymized then it isn’t protected under GDPR.

In Germany most have a girl-card

I assume autocorrect screwed you?

For anyone else reading this: no, there is no such thing as girl-cards.

Tbf, one minister’s opinion is not necessarily the opinion of the government as a whole.
Unless it’s Lindner apparently.

Where’s the NATO equivalent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
Headquartered in Moscow.

Now think for yourself why Ukraine would rather protect itself from being invaded by Russia than by the US.

Verkehr ist keine Naturgewalt, sondern eine tägliche individuelle Entscheidung.

Die Rahmenbedingungen wie Infrastruktur, Kosten für ÖPNV, etc sind aber keine individuelle sondern eine gesellschaftliche/politische Entscheidung.

Unfortunately that’s exactly how it works.
Look at any country’s border and tell me which ones weren’t established by violence.

The actual question is, what alternative to accepting Israel’s existence would you propose. Because forcefully removing them would just be one more crime.

Yes, opposing the establishment of a new state with a new population where someone else already lived would have been appropriate in the late 1940s.

Unfortunately it’s 2024 now, Israel does exist and time is linear.
So the only thing that can be done now is to recognize neither Israel nor Palestine should be erased.
(Though pointing out that the latter doesn’t seem to get mentioned here would be appropriate.)

Fractional-reserve banking

That has already become outdated, at least according to some economists.
Banks can just create loans out of thin air without having to check their own reserves first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation#Credit_theory_of_money

and the houses will not go on the market

I understand the other arguments but I’m confused about this one.
If houses that were used to house tourists are no longer allowed to do so, why would they not become available for either rent or sale?
What else is there for the owners to do with them?

Barcelona still has plenty of regular commercial Hotels that are purpose built to house many tourists.

somehow an even bigger clusterfuck

I agree that rejoining won’t magically solve all problems but I don’t see how it would make things worse.

austerity measure after austerity measure and somehow made our budgetal deficit worse

Not surprising.
Reducing government spending means reducing the money that is in economic circulation.
Companies earn less, people earn less and ultimately taxes go down.

Ah, I see.
So the water is not too warm for cooling, it’s too warm to absorb the backfeed, which is a necessary result of the cooling process.
Which effectively still means that they can’t properly cool the plant because the river water is too warm.

Besides providing verbatim records of who said what, there is a second can of worms in forming any sort of binding agreement if the two sides of the agreement are having two different conversations.

I think this is what the part about the missed nuance means.

Once this has been implemented, something worse can be implemented.

I don’t like these slippery slope arguments. You might as well reduce it to any legislation.
Once people are allowed to make laws, bad people can make bad laws.
Which is why we must continue to vote in the right people, not abandon the concept of laws.

In this case, I don’t doubt that copyright infringement and general censorship are on some people’s agenda.
But this current proposal is bad enough itself and should be opposed because of that and not because someone might make other, even worse proposals in the future.

France has plenty of nuclear power.
It doesn’t help with renewable peaks in the slightest.

What is needed are storage solutions and flexible usage that can utilize cheap power at peak times.