Scholz has done that one before with Schill in Hamburg. Move to the right, which gave Schills small party a win and really hurt Hamburg. The good news is that Schill does reality tv nowadays. So I look forward to AFD leadership penis jokes on some beach in Brazil.

Israels support of Hamas is a pretty good starting point. That one pretty clearly shows, how the Israeli government continues that situation.

The other one is looking at the situation from an Israeli perspective. Iran is the most open anti Israel country right now. A lot of other countries in the region, do not like Iran either and are somewhat willing to work together with Israel. That is Saudi Arabia for example. The issue is that the situation in Palestine is preventing that alliance from forming. So a deal with the Palestinians gives Israel greater security in the region as well. If done right that would only mean the northern border to Lebanon and Syria is challenged.

No elections are scheduled to be held in October 2026, but the coaltion is very likely going to break as soon as the war ends.

When a BBC correspondent phoned a company to clarify the details about the length of a shift, the recruiter refused to provide the information, but immediately offered to hire the reporter.

LOL

There are anti war protests in Israel against Netanyahu since Hamas attack on the October 7th. As soon as the fighting ends an new election will be called and Netanyahu is probably going to loose that one. That would mean a more moderate government for Israel and the chance for a deal with the PLO. However a war with Iran delays this and we know what is going on in Palestine right now.

A weaker Iran might help, but the way of getting rid of Iran as a problem is a revolution within Iran. I doubt a war against Israel would help with that.

Israel and Iran going for a real war, would make the currently bad situation even worse. However it does come with the advantage that both countries might get rid of their shitty leaders.

You have basically two sites. One loves the fact that Arabs and Jews kill each other and want the war to continue. They support ending German aid to Palestine and so forth. The other wants to end US warmongering in the region, caused by US support of Islamic terrorist in attacking Israel. Yes I did not mix that up, the US according to some in the AFD Biden supports Hamas.

This is why we can’t fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint. Because it requires 100% of the population taking it upon themselves to do the right thing and many individuals: -don’t care -don’t have the option

No, it just requires everybody who is not living in a sustainable fashion to change their lifestyle. Prending otherwise like you do is just not helpful. People will not be able to drive a combustion engine car, fly on a jet, take diesel ship cruises, eat even close to as much beef and a lot of other things, which are going to change their lifes. Without changing that, you just can not solve the climate crisis.

People like you, who only want to lobby governments to take action, ignore that this is going to create a counter movement. That already happened a few times. Yellow west and farmer protests come to mind. This is very easily capable of stoping climate action in total and has lead to some truely nasty parties gaining in power. This idea of being able to ignore those effects, is just plain and simply dumb. We need to convince most people to take climate change seriously enough to be willing to change their lifes. Otherwise your climate idea of just lobbying works once and is very quickly reversed.

Keep in mind a society is made up of individuals. That means no society will be willing to take climate action, when the individuals in the society are not willing to do so.

The top 10% globally emit almost half of global emissions That group is also the one, which can afford the alternatives, like for example EVs.

You also ignore that actually living the change, is what builts up the alternatives. Lets take EVs as an example. Economies of scale bring down prices and more EVs means more reason to expand charging infrastructure. We can in fact see both of those in action. That kind of stuff also works socially. The more EVs are around, the more normal they become. It also lowers oil sales, which hurt oil companies, which makes them weaker.

Aligning you politics and your lifestyle, also makes you more effective politically. Somebody who rudes their bike in everyday life as trandport, will call for very different things, then somebody who only drives everywhere. That can just be knowing the worst parts in the cycling network. Also again, it makes it more believable, when you lobby for something, which makes your life better.

So I will continue to try to live a life, which aligns with my values, and not pretend I gave up all my agency to Wallstreet.

What I am trying to say, is that to fight climate change lifestyle changes are required. To get those changes done in a demicratic fashion, you need to convince a majority of people to actually make those changes. Part of that is making them without the actual law, to show that it is possible.

Just take you as an example. You want I presume a combustionengine ban. However that ban would cause you massive problems, as you can not get to work or buy food without a car. I would say that, if true, those would be amazing arguments against such a ban. For me the argument is much easies, as I would do more or less fine with that law, as my lifestyle is already pretty low car.

Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

Remeber the US president refusing to wear a mask in public? Johnsons parties during covid? There was a lot of that bs.