AliSaket

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.

The interesting thing is that they are only one in a long line of businesses/industries openly admitting to employing undocumented immigrants, i.e. illegal hiring practices. It is clear, why these businesses are doing this: They can pay less (and the on-cost) and if at any point there is a dispute, they can threaten with the authorities, even if it is illegal in places to do so. If we can believe the numbers, they make up more than 4% of the workforce. Something that has been so seldomly prosecuted, it has become so prevalent, that they're talking about it in the open.

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!

So Trump would have made annexation through military force acceptable. Instead we have Putin now changing Russia's nuclear doctrine to: Attacking in Russia, even with conventional weapons, merits a nuclear response. A member of a union will be considered as the union as a whole. And generally lowered the level of threat (to 'sovereignty' instead of the former 'existence'). https://www.newsweek.com/russia-putin-nuclear-doctrine-1988843

I don't see this ending well. The Ukrainians, who are getting the missiles do not only have their own interest of not conceding any territory, but also the interest in getting others, primarily the U.S. involved in a direct confrontation.

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.

Stupid people wanted to claim that Harris was “the same as” Trump.

What we have here are voters who thought Trump would be better than Harris, not the same. I can understand, even if it's technically wrong, when people feel that genocide is genocide. And they see what is happening there as an extension to them (which any psychotherapist who's dealt with someone of an ethnic group which is in war can attest to).

Most of these people are in their own echo chambers

Although this is most probably a factor, I believe this to be too simple an explanation. So about the media landscape: Yes. Especially the so-called 'new media' is seldomly truly independent but often biased in that they peddle this false narrative that Trump is a peace candidate. Also notable is that 'alternative media' is largely seen as independent from billionaires and power, while legacy media is an arm of the establishment. So the narrative of 'us vs. them' works even better and since the biggest names lean more right or are outright Republican propaganda channels, this could translate into more people who already resent the status quo falling for them. And thanks to the engagement-optimizing algorithms they fall into these echo-chambers. Sidenote: I'm not de-legitimizing alternative outlets, but want to stress the importance of scrutinizing how they finance themselves. We just had a case of one right-wing propaganda channel being exposed as being financed by a Russian oligarch for years. (I forgot the name)

One could also point to the rhetoric and behavior of the two candidates towards the pro-Palestinian population in the last few weeks and months before the election. One side didn't let Palestinian voices be heard and even actively and preemptively removed an elected Democrat from one of their own events, because he happened to be Palestinian American. Outside the DNC the protestors were met with disdain and ridicule by DNC delegates. And the other side came to ~~speak~~ lie to them about what he's gonna do and that he takes them seriously. People are gonna see this.

Or generally when Harris said that she wanted the 'most lethal military in the world', while the other side talked about ending wars 'within the first 24 hours'. Outrageous but a stark contrast.

Or the simple sentiment that with the Dems in power genocide is happening, so I'll roll the dice. The same anti-establishment sentiment that led to Trump in 2016 in the first place (economic in nature in 2016).

Talking about anti-establishment sentiment: I know of only one exception to this. But after COVID, there's only one incumbent party in the democratic world, that came out of elections still in power. And that's Mexico. If you know any others, please feel free to enlighten me.

The list is not extensive by any means and is just me spit-balling. If we want to understand what happened the answers are going to be much more complex.