I’m not surprised the EFAS got approved. It is a complex topic where you would need to read almost the whole KVG to truly understand what’s going on and the messaging of the opponents was sub-optimal to put it mildly.

The opposing opinion in the official booklet, at least for the German version, was incomprehensible and without concrete links to the substance of the issue or their claims. E.g. HOW are the insurers getting more power? What will they be able to do, that they can’t already? What are the absolute numbers, that show that premiums will rise, when the official report mentions sinking costs? Why will the quality of care deteriorate? They mention privatization, but don’t tell you what would facilitate that…

The Pro side mainly stressed the positive of correcting the disincentives towards cheaper ambulatory treatments through changing to the uniform financing formula, which in and of itself and without further context is a valid and good point. Both substantively and politically.

And my biggest problem lies with the official ‘examining review’ from the Federal Chancellery. I know it is normal to try and project what the changes in law could affect in reality. Imho they did it in a biased way. Why am I saying that? Because every argument and scenario they brought up was positive and basically the pro-opinion reads like a summary of the official review. Also: When making simplifications from the actual legal text, they used a more positive description (E.g. “coordination” vs. “restriction” talking about the states limiting offered services). There aren’t many absolute numbers to understand just how much money will shift between insurers, states and patients and what that would mean. In such a situation it is even more incumbent on the opponents to make the downsides clear and fill those gaps.

To add to that:

We have a militia system, which on first glance is a good thing. But then you realize that a plurality of parliamentarians are lawyers, business-people, advisors and other higher economic class individuals. Too many of them are on boards of directors or other high management positions in corporations. Compared to other western countries, it is more mixed, but clear conflicts of interests are present and it is still skewed towards the economic elite. The reasons for this are many, but among others voters getting such individuals in high positions can be paired with people in lower economic classes having less opportunities or motivation to run for office. Which is why local organizing is of utmost importance. You can see the effect in parliaments on a local level: They far more closely represent the population than on a state or federal level. Then there’s party politics, but that’ll get too long, soooo: Next point:

The media landscape: Your point about a billionaire having great impact on the electoral landscape extends to the media. You can count the owners of the local papers on one hand. Said billionaire owns some of them as well as an own TV channel if you can call it that. And there’s a general animosity towards the SRG SSR with political and legislative attacks to weaken it.

You seem absolutely sure that this will materialize and that its implication means that you have no scope of action. Again, with enough institutionalists in important positions, even if he tries, it would be difficult for him to actually get rid of federal, let alone local and state elections. What is much more likely is that he will make it easier to skew or how he might call it “rig” elections. You know, like voter suppression and gerrymandering on steroids. So what I’ve written still holds: On a local and state level (or even federal level), pressure your elected officials and organize around the protection of voting rights. Be an active part of the legislative process. Democracy isn’t making a cross every four years. And she’s calling on all of us.

Sidenote: For everything that man says, you can find a clip of him saying the absolute opposite. So watch what he and his lackeys do, not what he says.

Decrying the persecution of crimes against humanity as antisemitic is quite something. It begs the question then, what these people see inherently Semitic about perpetrating these crimes.

The blatant misuse of this term is actually very harmful to Jews around the world, since calls of those actually suffering from anti-Jewish sentiment are not taken seriously anymore.

The OP did a quality reply already where he cites the article you’ve linked to debunk your own claims. But you could also have done with reading the OP’s article until the second paragraph.

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

At this point unquestionably spouting the official lies of the U.S. or Israeli governments is spouting genocidal propaganda and can only be seen as either hopelessly ignorant or bad faith.

The second paragraph in the article:

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

The second paragraph reads:

The draft resolution was aimed at calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire” in Gaza and the release of all hostages held by Palestinian groups in the enclave.

Outside perspective: It doesn’t have to be. It is the moment democracy, its values and its people are tested. The path towards open dictatorship and/or fascism is not set in stone. What is clear is that some setbacks, even catastrophic setbacks, are unavoidable. But as a whole the free-fall can be avoided and you can bounce back from setbacks, even if it takes time. This is actually somewhat universal, since it’s not only the U.S. which is sliding more and more towards fascistic or anti-democratic tendencies. It’s just that, like with so many other things, everything does seem to be bigger in the U.S. (and Texas).

Although I’m sure a lot are feeling economic pain and/or are generally under stress and uncertainty (IIRC 50% of households struggle to make an unplanned $1000 expense), and I don’t expect it to get better under the new administration, the U.S. is still a federated system. If you look at what affects your daily lives directly, a lot more is done on a local and state level, than on the federal level.

From where I’m standing, organizing with like-minded people in your community around issues is the most promising way to go. Unfortunately the issues are back to basics issues like human rights and democratic principles, but that’s where we are. This entails more than just protesting, but actively pressuring elected officials around legislation proposals. Suggest ballot measures (find out how such a measure gets to the ballot in the first place, because it’s very different depending on where you are). And of course having people run for office and for the others to support them to get in, and get the anti-democratic forces out, once it is time. Don’t succumb to the nationalization of local elections. People can be reached way better and more directly on the local level, when they can see it directly affecting their lives and talking to the people responsible directly than for anything happening in Washington D.C. Counter the anti-democracy spewing media outlets with true alternatives (maybe there’s an entrepreneurial-minded person wanting to found a cooperative media outlet).

It sounds like a lot to do. But you are more, than you think. Even the disillusioned might be good allies. Take yes for an answer. And more people than you might expect have been part of ‘the struggle’ for a long time. Welcome them. And yes: Coordinate with and support other local actions.

Another view on what will happen with the federal institutions: Although Trump will put more loyalists than ever in powerful stations, there will remain many (even among the loyalists) who profit from the system’s status quo. This includes the Supreme Court justices and ironically corporate goons. So in furthering their own advantage, they might resist things leading to an overall degradation. Of course they will go along with and actively lobby for anything that gives them more power at the expense of the general populace, but that is already the case. Again, if you make unlikely allies on single issues: Take yes for an answer.

Bottom line: Democracy and basic rights are ideas, made by humans. And they can only survive, as long as we believe in and fight for them. Always keep the belief, always keep on fighting. If you hit your head and fall down: Get back up. As the saying goes: This is a marathon, not a sprint. All the best!

No surprise there. Not too long ago they have given up their ‘neutral’ stance (wasn’t really when Wagner was involved with the RSF) and gained support from the SAF for the construction of a Russian naval base, while the Wagner group still fights with the RSF.

Many reasons. One major factor imho is the belief or illusion to be living in a meritocracy. Which would mean, that someone who’s rich has to have earned it and therefore criticism must stem from envy or jealousy. The same belief fuels the ideology of thinking of poor people to just be lazy leeches on society.

Never have I ever watched/read anything relating to Lord of the Rings.

To be fair, business development wasn’t the main hangup for many of the people I know. The two main reasons I heard (and partly raised myself), was firstly the detrimental effect on expanding solar- & wind-energy-production. And secondly overreaching, i.e. not limiting the protection to the environment, but also include townscape protection and historical sites, essentially further restraining residential development (including changing them into more dense usage) in a time where living space is scarce and expensive.

When the pro-side has its reservations, then of course it doesn’t help that the executive (Federal Council) is dominated by pro-corporate ideology and have brought forward arguments of “damaging the business location”. But making it out to be the only reason is just dishonest.