This is how economics works: in a capitalist society you'll never run out of a mineral resource because it will get priced out of practicality, leaving you with plenty of that commodity still in the ground that you just can't use. This has three consequences: (1) people try to get more efficient at using the resource; (2) people look for alternatives; (3) the rising price of the commodity fosters conflict and crime, until the first two consequences succeed in reducing the demand.
You mean like gold, oil and diamonds?
Once the price goes up, it's more economically feasible to invest in getting the stuff out of the ground. Which in turn increases supply, which in turn reduces price. That's why fracking is a thing.
It's quite correct in this case as the third party in the coalition - the CSU - is basically the Bavarian catholic special snowflake edition of the CDU (Merkel's party). So it's basically two parties (CDU/CSU as one and SPD as one) in the majority coalition. The votes of the other opposition parties are not required in the lawmaking process if it does not concern constitutional laws and members of parliament ("Bundestag") voting against party lines is highly unusual.
So yeah "bipartisan" as in "CDU/CSU and SPD" is quite correct.
It is as this has absolutely nothing to do with the political situation in Austria and perfectly proves you not having a clue about it. Nobody around here has been surprised by any win by populists since at least 1999 when "they" actually won big.
Can't you just agree that you did not get your numbers right because you did not understand the system correctly? I'm not arguing the "all over the world" aspect as I stated in at least two different ways now, just that your statement "Austria they voted for the greens a party which historically has enjoyed a crappy 15% of the vote" is simply factually wrong. Some people like reading slashdot to inform themselves and accurate information maybe helpful to those.
Except that the last number, as I explained, is no number of the green party. That is just a fact as you are comparing apples and oranges here because as I explained presidential elections are absolutely nothing like elections for parliament over here. Your way of reading the numbers is like taking 10 historical results of one congressional district and then adding a vote on the legalization of marijuana on a state level to that. It's just not the same thing.
The pretty major change in the political spectrum actually occurred over here in the 1990s when we had our first local "Trump" in Jörg Haider. So maybe it is not so much laser eye surgery as putting the actual numbers correctly.
I repeat that I do not disagree with you on the "sick of shit" sentiment or the shift of power all over Europe as I already outlined. But I also think it is a fallacy and honestly quite arrogant to disregard a peoples historical background because something that looks similar happened in the US or UK. Our right wingers, Trump and Brexiters are similar in riding on the "f*ck the system" ticket but they are definitely not the same in goals, methods and ideology.
If you use some country as an example: just get it right or do not talk about stuff you do not know enough about to interpret numbers.
Austria they voted for the greens a party which historically has enjoyed a crappy 15% of the vote,
Except we did not. What you are probably referring to was the second round of the presidential election, where the two remaining candidate was the former leader of the green party explicitly rejecting the notion of being a green party candidate against the declared candidate of the ultra-right-wing "liberty party". Our president has far less power than the POTUS and has more of a ceremonial role. There was no election concerning parties like those for local or national parliament would be.
The election was since successfully contested by the right-wingers in the Austrian "supreme court" (constitutional court would be the better translation here) and we're going to vote again on December 4th with right-wingers being successful or expected to be in elections all over Europe (Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc.) who btw. where all very supportive of Trump and vice versa.
Wether Trump being elected POTUS will help the Austrian ultra-right or their opposition which is pretty much everybody else remains to be seen. But yeah, the sentiment of people being "sick of shit" holds true all the same just that over here it's actually right-wingers, declared xenophobes, anti-semitics, Holocaust deniers and other remains of ultra-nationalist- and nazi-groups under the umbrella of the "liberty party" that benefit and not the greens which are more or less considered being some left-wingish part of "the elite" by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists say that net-zero emissions by 2050 are needed to have a fighting chance of keeping global temperatures under 1.5C this century.
So there should not be a spot on the globe with a temperature above 1.5C? Why would anyone want that?
If you want to talk about a metric, how about naming it correctly first?
This is how economics works: in a capitalist society you'll never run out of a mineral resource because it will get priced out of practicality, leaving you with plenty of that commodity still in the ground that you just can't use. This has three consequences: (1) people try to get more efficient at using the resource; (2) people look for alternatives; (3) the rising price of the commodity fosters conflict and crime, until the first two consequences succeed in reducing the demand.
You mean like gold, oil and diamonds? Once the price goes up, it's more economically feasible to invest in getting the stuff out of the ground. Which in turn increases supply, which in turn reduces price. That's why fracking is a thing.
It's quite correct in this case as the third party in the coalition - the CSU - is basically the Bavarian catholic special snowflake edition of the CDU (Merkel's party). So it's basically two parties (CDU/CSU as one and SPD as one) in the majority coalition. The votes of the other opposition parties are not required in the lawmaking process if it does not concern constitutional laws and members of parliament ("Bundestag") voting against party lines is highly unusual.
So yeah "bipartisan" as in "CDU/CSU and SPD" is quite correct.
It is as this has absolutely nothing to do with the political situation in Austria and perfectly proves you not having a clue about it. Nobody around here has been surprised by any win by populists since at least 1999 when "they" actually won big.
Can't you just agree that you did not get your numbers right because you did not understand the system correctly? I'm not arguing the "all over the world" aspect as I stated in at least two different ways now, just that your statement "Austria they voted for the greens a party which historically has enjoyed a crappy 15% of the vote" is simply factually wrong. Some people like reading slashdot to inform themselves and accurate information maybe helpful to those.
Except that the last number, as I explained, is no number of the green party. That is just a fact as you are comparing apples and oranges here because as I explained presidential elections are absolutely nothing like elections for parliament over here. Your way of reading the numbers is like taking 10 historical results of one congressional district and then adding a vote on the legalization of marijuana on a state level to that. It's just not the same thing.
The pretty major change in the political spectrum actually occurred over here in the 1990s when we had our first local "Trump" in Jörg Haider. So maybe it is not so much laser eye surgery as putting the actual numbers correctly.
I repeat that I do not disagree with you on the "sick of shit" sentiment or the shift of power all over Europe as I already outlined. But I also think it is a fallacy and honestly quite arrogant to disregard a peoples historical background because something that looks similar happened in the US or UK. Our right wingers, Trump and Brexiters are similar in riding on the "f*ck the system" ticket but they are definitely not the same in goals, methods and ideology.
If you use some country as an example: just get it right or do not talk about stuff you do not know enough about to interpret numbers.
Except we did not. What you are probably referring to was the second round of the presidential election, where the two remaining candidate was the former leader of the green party explicitly rejecting the notion of being a green party candidate against the declared candidate of the ultra-right-wing "liberty party". Our president has far less power than the POTUS and has more of a ceremonial role. There was no election concerning parties like those for local or national parliament would be.
The election was since successfully contested by the right-wingers in the Austrian "supreme court" (constitutional court would be the better translation here) and we're going to vote again on December 4th with right-wingers being successful or expected to be in elections all over Europe (Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc.) who btw. where all very supportive of Trump and vice versa.
Wether Trump being elected POTUS will help the Austrian ultra-right or their opposition which is pretty much everybody else remains to be seen. But yeah, the sentiment of people being "sick of shit" holds true all the same just that over here it's actually right-wingers, declared xenophobes, anti-semitics, Holocaust deniers and other remains of ultra-nationalist- and nazi-groups under the umbrella of the "liberty party" that benefit and not the greens which are more or less considered being some left-wingish part of "the elite" by now.