The AfD have not violated anyones rights. They have a massive following who vote for them, which is growing larger and larger by the day. Banning them from elections is anti-democratic when they haven't done anything to harm anyones rights, nor do any of their policies actually harm anyones "rights".
What policies of theirs do you believe would violate the rights of others?
That's not their policies, that's what a biased spy agency said lol. It also makes zero sense as a reason to be "not compatible with the free democratic order".
And yet, that’s not what happened.
It is though. What do you think happened?
why are they ordering him back?
Because they believe the stay of deportation overrides the illegal alien act that was used to deport him. That's up for debate, and hopefully will go through the courts to get a final ruling - though on the face of it it seems like it doesn't override it, so they were able to deport him.
A few things wrong here:
I'm not blaming it on one person. I'm blaming the entire Labor government and their policies, along with the Greens and Teals who they make deals with to get things to pass.
The article I gave reports on what happened in the senate estimates hearings. Direct quotes are in there. You can feel free to look up what they said in your news source of choice - I simply gave news.com.au because it is the biggest Australian news site and is an aggregator of news from all different sources, left and right wing. Here's one reporting on the same thing but on a "socialist" left wing site: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/03/12/kenh-m12.html Same quotes, same facts and figures.
I don’t know if you’re a bot, an idiot or just disingenuous but your argument is trash.
Rule 5 says hi.
You need to better understand how to separate what is being reported from who is reporting it. When it's direct quotes and verbatim responses with context provided, the site reporting it is basically irrelevant. A quick google of the information in the source I provided would show you that it is all factually correct and verifiable.
As for your personal attacks, grow up. I presented facts and sources to back them up. You dismissed them because you don't like what they said, even though what the article presents is factual.
So, ordering him to come back is what? Nothing?
The same people that ordered his deportation are not the same people ordering that they have to try and bring him back.
Did you not see the interview? Lol
Trump wasn't the one that made the ruling that he was MS13. That was done by immigration and 2 separate judges 6 years ago, and then confirmed by the president of el salvador when he asked for him to be sent there. Trump was presenting the facts that he was ruled to be MS13 by 2 separate Judges and immigration.
Ok so there's no point for me trying to continue this discussion with you as you clearly aren't arguing in good faith. See ya.
If you can't provide a single piece of evidence to support your argument no matter how many times you're asked, it's correct to assume it doesn't exist. Bye now :)
Is stealing a car punishable by a death sentence?
No, but pointing a loaded gun at a police officer while stealing a car is.
Is possessing a firearm punishable by a death sentence?
No, but pointing a loaded gun at a police officer while stealing a car is.
cops are not judge jury and executioner
They are in certain situations though, typically ones where suspected criminals - especially ones caught in the act - point guns at them. Every time they are there will be an investigation to determine if it was a lawful shooting, and if it isn't they will face consequences (though very often those consequences will NOT be harsh enough, but that's a different story).
There is a thing called due process.
There's a thing called obeying the law too, and this kid didn't follow that. "Due process", the flavour of the month for the left, believe it or not DOES include police shooting suspects to death in certain circumstances.
There is no proof the guy even had a gun.
You haven't seen it, though it reportedly exists. We'll see when the final reports come out.
The cop SAID he had one, and cops are well known for carrying around throw away guns, to plant on people after they have killed them.
Ok so you've jumped straight to "it's a conspiracy". Good for you, but the rest of us like to wait for actual evidence and "due process" to play out. It is currently being investigated. If it is proven that he did have a gun, what will you say then?
Show me a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Show me 1 specific example of a law that is “gay erasure” please. That’s not too much to ask, surely?
Last chance then I'll correctly assume that there are no sources on there that support the "gay erasure" argument.
why?
Why.....what? Why would they remove the information about programs that no longer exist? Because they no longer exist. The information is no longer relevant, and leaving it up would only cause confusion.
you don’t know what censure is, and no I’m not reporting you.
CenSURE and cenSOR are very different things. Are you claming that the removal of the DEI stuff from the government websites is censuring or censoring?
Show me a source. Wikipedia is not a source. Show me 1 specific example of a law that is “gay erasure” please. That’s not too much to ask, surely?
All that and still didn't answer a simple question:
Which policies are "nazi" policies exactly?
Also worth pointing out, since you clearly don't remember - the Nazi's were far left socialists. They weren't far right.