this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
518 points (97.3% liked)

World News

51315 readers
2236 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Elon Musk expressed support for Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party on X, stating “Only the AfD can save Germany.”

Party leader Alice Weidel welcomed his endorsement, urging followers to review her criticisms of German politics.

The AfD, polling at 19% ahead of February’s federal election, is officially under scrutiny as an extremist group by German authorities.

Musk has previously questioned the party’s “far-right” label. Controversy surrounds the AfD, including links to a meeting discussing deportation of migrants.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 188 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Damn, so he’s just going to buy every government? I guess the first one was so cheap, he figures he can afford at least four or five more.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 105 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I miss when rich guys just bought sports teams

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 58 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

That shows how good they were at rehabilitating their image. How did those "philanthropists" get the money to build the libraries?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike

[–] PlasticLove@lemmy.today 25 points 1 year ago

I miss when they had their heads chopped off.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Didn't his estimated wealth nearly double in the past couple years? He's got enough money to buy all the governments at this point

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Buy government, get money from government, buy another government - rinse and repeat.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It's like those leveraged buyouts that were all the rage a few years back

[–] Curiousfur@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Doubled in the past month. ~$220 Billion to $440 Billion or something.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 8 points 1 year ago

Buying governments really pays off it seems.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When i hear stats like this, it makes money seem a lot less valuable

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Money is completely fake, especially stock market money. Too bad we have to pretend it's real so we can pay our landlords etc.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 2 points 11 months ago

Basically just one of those idle clicker games at this point...

[–] benni@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fortunately, AfD is not in the government and possibly never will be

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 20 points 1 year ago

They have been getting traction consistently and German politics moved significantly to the right over the past years. Now supposedly progressive parties like the social democrats and greens spout stuff that five years ago was exclusive to the AfD and maybe the fringes of the Bavarian CSU.

Even if they don't govern they get their way more and more, which helps normalising their positions more and more, which gives them more and more votes.

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They had 93 seats in the German parliament as of 2017 and are now the second most popular party as of a 2023 poll.

I just got those numbers from a DDG search two minutes ago. Where did you get your information?

[–] benni@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They would require a coalition with another big party, but all other established parties are strongly opposed to working with them, while being at least somewhat open to working with each other. From that perspective, the current voting predictions can be seen as 19% AfD vs 60% established parties (no longer counting FDP, lol). Still bad, but I think it's reasonably likely that the other parties would keep coalising with each other and excluding the AfD.

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a much more reasonable take than what you said earlier, as much as I'd prefer it were not true.

[–] benni@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the same take. They're not in the government, and possibly never will be.

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems we have different definitions of "in the government."

[–] benni@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ah, I see the issue now. Parties get voted into the parliament. The government consists of a coalition of parties that together form a majority. The other parties form the opposition. Therefore, a single party can have many seats in the parliament, but still not be part of the government, if enough other parties coalise without them.

[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 11 months ago

No, I get your definition, I just disagree with it.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's . . . he's a CEO isnt' he?

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn’t you hear? He’s the new president of America, just elected by the people, with his secretary Trump by his side

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

Elected by billionaires, not the people

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

People have a real problem grasping the wealth of 500 Billion dollars. At the Median US household income it would take 12 years to make a million dollars; 1,200 years to make a hundred million dollars; 12,000 years to make a billion dollars; and 1.2 million years to make a 100 billion dollars.

His wealth is essentially limitless. It is that of a moderate sized country like Norway or Israel. When he can have an effect with 100 million dollars he could influence 5,000 elections with 500 billion dollars. And that's not even talking about his investments in social media, PR cult of personality, and straight up vote buying in broad daylight.

I sincerely hope he and X end up banned from Europe, with a warrant out for his arrest in relation for doing this. Because America has proven unable to stop him. Another country might though if they come down hard on anyone accepting his money and as hard as they can on him without using their military.