A - Austria

Carol Newman2 said:The best thing about the Republican Party right now is definitely Donald Trump, who’s basically the current Microsoft of politics. He’s only 30—well, let's just say he's incredibly young for this—but the guy is an undeniably talented politician.
He really ought to be the GOP's candidate for Chancellor.

Yeah, I guess he really is the best thing the Republican Party has going for them (not like there's much competition anyway), and he'll definitely be the nominee, it's just a matter of when. So far, his positions have been kind of vague, and I get the feeling he's trying to please everyone without offending anyone. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, I suppose, but I'm not sure if he's quite ready to be President yet. If the Democrats go with Christian Kern (which they probably will), it's totally possible the Republican Party might pick an older, more seasoned candidate to win over their base. You have to remember the Republican Party is mostly made up of older conservatives, so who knows how they'd react to Sebastian Kurz as the lead candidate. Maybe it's just a little too early for him.

Sebastian Kurz is in a pretty tight spot right now, and the Republican Party is feeling the heat. If he’s as smart as I think he is, he’ll probably just stay in the background until after the elections. He’s definitely part of that hardline faction—you know, the crowd aligned with the old guard—who would much rather team up with the populist wing. Mitterlehener might look slightly more stable following these polls, but he's still on thin ice. It's really just a matter of when the party leadership decides to pull the plug on him.

David Vaughn75 said:The reality is, you guys want Muslims to follow your specific social playbook, yet you're all over the place trying to ban gay marriage while nobody's coming after your lifestyle.

The Right wing just wants to force their own morality down everyone's throats so we're all forced to live life their way.

Come on, admit it: if someone had told you five years ago that a candidate running openly against abortion, gay marriage, and gender ideology would pull 46% of the vote in Austria, you would have called them insane.
But that is exactly what happened.

In six years, the Republican Party is going to win. The left is slowly dismantling itself. Over the next six years in Austria, there will be roughly 100,000 abortions, the Austrian population will continue its decline, fertility rates will hover at a dismal 1.2, and the Muslim population will grow.
Conservatives perform far fewer abortions—it’s just simple math. It’s the kind of math that is gradually eroding liberalism across all of Europe.

So, enjoy this era of gender ideology while you can. You can already see the writing on the wall.

Sandra Barnes8 said:Come on, admit it: if someone had told you five years ago that a candidate running openly against abortion, gay marriage, and gender ideology would pull 46% of the vote in Austria, you would have called them insane.
But that is exactly what happened.

In six years, the Republican Party is going to win. The left is slowly dismantling itself. Over the next six years in Austria, there will be roughly 100,000 abortions, the Austrian population will continue its decline, fertility rates will hover at a dismal 1.2, and the Muslim population will grow.
Conservatives perform far fewer abortions—it’s just simple math. It’s the kind of math that is gradually eroding liberalism across all of Europe.

So, enjoy this era of gender ideology while you can. You can already see the writing on the wall.

I think you're being pretty selective with how you read these election results. I could flip your logic and say the left is destroying everything, since five years ago, it seemed impossible for a Green candidate to grab over 50% and become president. But the reality is that people didn't necessarily vote for Hofer because he's anti-abortion, and they didn't vote for VdBa specifically because of his views on gay marriage. A runoff election is really just meant to pit two polarized groups against each other, which usually lands the numbers somewhere between 40% and 60%. But I don't think that gives anyone the right to cherry-pick those percentages to fit a specific narrative.

As for demographic shifts, that's a global reality, and I guess it falls under those big periodic cycles. It's hard to see how Hofer or the Republican Party (even with walls or fences) could make a significant dent in that, whether they're in power or not. There are much bigger forces at play here—it's not like Americans told people to send weapons into Syria. The truth is, nation-states are just losing their grip and sovereignty. I honestly believe globalization was pushed forward specifically to tear down those borders. If you know history, you can see where we're headed, and I doubt the future involves Westerners suddenly deciding to have way more kids. And I don't think Hofer, the right wing, or Muslims are to blame for that; it's just human nature, I guess. That's why civilizations rise and fall, and it'll happen again because people always focus on the symptoms rather than the actual causes.

While we're busy blaming the left, the right, the Masons, Muslims, or walls... the world just keeps moving. And like it always does, I suppose, the ones who survive are the ones who adapt the fastest.

Nathan Morris3 said:I think you're being pretty selective with how you read these election results. I could flip your logic and say the left is destroying everything, since five years ago, it seemed impossible for a Green candidate to grab over 50% and become president. But the reality is that people didn't necessarily vote for Hofer because he's anti-abortion, and they didn't vote for VdBa specifically because of his views on gay marriage. A runoff election is really just meant to pit two polarized groups against each other, which usually lands the numbers somewhere between 40% and 60%. But I don't think that gives anyone the right to cherry-pick those percentages to fit a specific narrative.

As for demographic shifts, that's a global reality, and I guess it falls under those big periodic cycles. It's hard to see how Hofer or the Republican Party (even with walls or fences) could make a significant dent in that, whether they're in power or not. There are much bigger forces at play here—it's not like Americans told people to send weapons into Syria. The truth is, nation-states are just losing their grip and sovereignty. I honestly believe globalization was pushed forward specifically to tear down those borders. If you know history, you can see where we're headed, and I doubt the future involves Westerners suddenly deciding to have way more kids. And I don't think Hofer, the right wing, or Muslims are to blame for that; it's just human nature, I guess. That's why civilizations rise and fall, and it'll happen again because people always focus on the symptoms rather than the actual causes.

While we're busy blaming the left, the right, the Masons, Muslims, or walls... the world just keeps moving. And like it always does, I suppose, the ones who survive are the ones who adapt the fastest.

I agree with part of that, but as for the idea that those who adapt the fastest will survive... I have to disagree. A Japanese person would rather face collective extinction alongside other Asians than allow their country to turn into a multicultural stage.

We have Nazis among Germans, we have fascists among Italians, but we don't see anything like that from the Japanese, despite the sickening crimes they committed during World War II. Looking back at those "sick experiments" they performed on prisoners and how they starved them, literal Nazis and fascists actually seem "mild" by comparison.

And again, no one is forcing guilt upon me, nor will they easily hand over their country. It isn't a secret that Asians are at the top when it comes to intelligence, and certain things don't go down that easily.

The one who adapts won't be the one who survives. We'll see how the Swedes fare, and even the English aren't doing great—especially since their urban centers like New York City and Birmingham are already lost causes. They're doing okay in the rural areas... It's hard to predict the future; fifty years ago, this stuff was science fiction. Who knows what the next 15 years will bring.

I guess I should probably get started on this soon. Maybe. Nathan Morris3 says:
I agree with part of that, I guess. But that idea about survival of the fittest? Maybe not quite... I feel like Japanese people would rather just fade away collectively than see their country turn into some multicultural melting pot, much like other Asian people might.

Yeah, that’s exactly why I figured they wouldn't make it—or like you put it, they'll just collectively die out. I guess I don't really see globalization as being good or bad, though. To me, it's just an inevitable fact of life. It feels like a natural flow, you know? People moving from struggling areas to better ones, or fleeing war zones for peace. Migration is just a natural consequence of that, just like how there's always going to be pushback or even that whole left vs. right divide. I don't think we can really control those things, but maybe we can at least try to address what causes them.

We see Nazis in Germany and fascists in Italy, but I don't really hear those labels used for Japanese people, even though they committed some truly horrific things during World War II. I guess the way they treated prisoners with those sick experiments and starvation tactics... maybe even the Nazis and fascists were being "mild" by comparison.

If you just look back at history over the last few hundred years, you'll see how the "bad guys" just keep swapping places. It’s endless, really. You've got the Japanese, the Ottomans, the British—who were probably the worst—and the Portuguese... there's no end to the list. Even today, everyone's pointing fingers at someone else, whether it's ISIS, Americans, or Russians. Nobody holds the title exclusively, I guess. But regarding Austria, I think it comes down to this: the generation that actually remembers where xenophobia and fascism lead is slowly fading away. These newer generations just don't have that collective memory. The people who lived through concentration camps, dictatorships, and the starvation and poverty following the war aren't around anymore. Memory only goes back a few decades now, so maybe that's why we keep seeing the same mistakes happen. It's the same thing with communism, which still pulls some people in, too. I suppose those who maintain a stronger collective memory will probably make fewer mistakes in the future.

I guess nobody's really looking to take the blame, or maybe they just won't hand over their country that easily. It’s no secret, I suppose, that Asian people tend to lead when it comes to intelligence, so some things just don't happen overnight.

I guess I'm a little worried that if we start talking about Asian people, things might drift off-topic. They have their own set of pros and cons, maybe, along with different issues too.

If you can't adapt, you probably won't make it. I guess we'll see how things turn out for the Swedish people, and maybe the English people too. They aren't doing great, especially since they live in big cities like New York City or Birmingham—those places feel pretty much lost already. It's better if they stay in rural areas... Hard to say what the future holds, though. Fifty years ago, all this stuff was just science fiction. Who knows what it'll look like in fifteen years?

I guess when I said "adaptation," I didn't necessarily mean something specific like "refugees welcome." Maybe in 50 to 80 years, national borders won't even matter anymore. There won't be an America or an Austria as we know them; nations might just shrink down to small tribal communities. Honestly, languages and identities probably won't last much longer either. Between colonialism, globalization, and capitalism... you can pretty much forget the world as it looks today. If we avoid a massive war, I suppose that'll be a win. The thing is, people seem to think they can just ignore how history actually moves. We spend all this time arguing over old political factions, but the reality is we're probably going to tear this planet apart in a few decades or millennia anyway. Maybe the visionaries will survive, while the left and the right just end up wiping each other out.

Nathan Morris3 said:

I guess I should probably get started on this soon. Maybe. Nathan Morris3 says:
I agree with part of that, I guess. But that idea about survival of the fittest? Maybe not quite... I feel like Japanese people would rather just fade away collectively than see their country turn into some multicultural melting pot, much like other Asian people might.

Yeah, that’s exactly why I figured they wouldn't make it—or like you put it, they'll just collectively die out. I guess I don't really see globalization as being good or bad, though. To me, it's just an inevitable fact of life. It feels like a natural flow, you know? People moving from struggling areas to better ones, or fleeing war zones for peace. Migration is just a natural consequence of that, just like how there's always going to be pushback or even that whole left vs. right divide. I don't think we can really control those things, but maybe we can at least try to address what causes them.

We see Nazis in Germany and fascists in Italy, but I don't really hear those labels used for Japanese people, even though they committed some truly horrific things during World War II. I guess the way they treated prisoners with those sick experiments and starvation tactics... maybe even the Nazis and fascists were being "mild" by comparison.

If you just look back at history over the last few hundred years, you'll see how the "bad guys" just keep swapping places. It’s endless, really. You've got the Japanese, the Ottomans, the British—who were probably the worst—and the Portuguese... there's no end to the list. Even today, everyone's pointing fingers at someone else, whether it's ISIS, Americans, or Russians. Nobody holds the title exclusively, I guess. But regarding Austria, I think it comes down to this: the generation that actually remembers where xenophobia and fascism lead is slowly fading away. These newer generations just don't have that collective memory. The people who lived through concentration camps, dictatorships, and the starvation and poverty following the war aren't around anymore. Memory only goes back a few decades now, so maybe that's why we keep seeing the same mistakes happen. It's the same thing with communism, which still pulls some people in, too. I suppose those who maintain a stronger collective memory will probably make fewer mistakes in the future.

I guess nobody's really looking to take the blame, or maybe they just won't hand over their country that easily. It’s no secret, I suppose, that Asian people tend to lead when it comes to intelligence, so some things just don't happen overnight.

I guess I'm a little worried that if we start talking about Asian people, things might drift off-topic. They have their own set of pros and cons, maybe, along with different issues too.

If you can't adapt, you probably won't make it. I guess we'll see how things turn out for the Swedish people, and maybe the English people too. They aren't doing great, especially since they live in big cities like New York City or Birmingham—those places feel pretty much lost already. It's better if they stay in rural areas... Hard to say what the future holds, though. Fifty years ago, all this stuff was just science fiction. Who knows what it'll look like in fifteen years?

I guess when I said "adaptation," I didn't necessarily mean something specific like "refugees welcome." Maybe in 50 to 80 years, national borders won't even matter anymore. There won't be an America or an Austria as we know them; nations might just shrink down to small tribal communities. Honestly, languages and identities probably won't last much longer either. Between colonialism, globalization, and capitalism... you can pretty much forget the world as it looks today. If we avoid a massive war, I suppose that'll be a win. The thing is, people seem to think they can just ignore how history actually moves. We spend all this time arguing over old political factions, but the reality is we're probably going to tear this planet apart in a few decades or millennia anyway. Maybe the visionaries will survive, while the left and the right just end up wiping each other out.

Globalization is just one of those trends that has been accelerating over the last twenty years or so, but everything eventually burns itself out—including this. Sure, some countries are going to lose a massive chunk of what makes them unique, but that's just how it works; much like any war, there are winners and losers. Personally, I don't think multicultural states can ever truly sustain themselves—the divisions are too deep, and it doesn't take much to spark a fire. Most of the wealth these nations enjoy was built by previous generations, yet as we move into the future, it looks like those foundations are being dismantled in the name of various ideologies...

I completely agree with that. War is almost inevitable at this point—human history is fundamentally driven by greed, power struggles, and ideology. Back in the late 60s, if someone had claimed that Germany would eventually host millions of Turks and Arabs, nobody would have believed them; yet, less than 50 years later, we're seeing exactly that play out. Who knows what the next 50 years will bring... we'll just have to wait and see.

Walter Long7 said:Globalization is just one of those trends that has been accelerating over the last twenty years or so, but everything eventually burns itself out—including this. Sure, some countries are going to lose a massive chunk of what makes them unique, but that's just how it works; much like any war, there are winners and losers. Personally, I don't think multicultural states can ever truly sustain themselves—the divisions are too deep, and it doesn't take much to spark a fire. Most of the wealth these nations enjoy was built by previous generations, yet as we move into the future, it looks like those foundations are being dismantled in the name of various ideologies...

I completely agree with that. War is almost inevitable at this point—human history is fundamentally driven by greed, power struggles, and ideology. Back in the late 60s, if someone had claimed that Germany would eventually host millions of Turks and Arabs, nobody would have believed them; yet, less than 50 years later, we're seeing exactly that play out. Who knows what the next 50 years will bring... we'll just have to wait and see.

What used to be called colonization is basically globalization today. And yeah, just like colonization ended, I guess globalization will too, though the consequences of both are pretty much inevitable. What wasn't natural, and what we should have avoided, was meddling in other people's business—toppling relatively stable regimes just to serve some third-party interests. It's sad to see people polarizing themselves over topics that were forced on them and that they didn't even cause (at least not directly). I mean, nobody asked me if I wanted us to send weapons to ISIS or Ali Nusri/Ali Kaidi. Nobody asked me if we should go tear down Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. Now we're all arguing about whether to build a wall or not, instead of just putting the people who caused all this mess and lined their pockets behind bars. Because of our short-sightedness, I guess we'll end up wherever we're headed. I'm not feeling optimistic, so I might just keep my suitcase packed.

You started talking about certain Asian nations, but that "isolationism" cost them a lot, and it still does. Maybe the Japanese achieved some individual collectivism, but the Chinese definitely didn't, and I guess generations will feel the fallout from communism.

Sorry for going off-topic. Official results come out at 1:00 PM.

Well, it’s finally all wrapped up.

VdB: 53.8%
Hofer: 46.2%

Hofer lost about 100,000 votes over the last few months, and that gap grew from 0.7% to 7.6%. I think there are only three states left supporting him now. It might not mean they've hit their peak or that things are definitely sliding downward, but I guess a lot of different factors probably swayed how people voted.

One good thing, though, is the turnout at 74.21%—it went up from 72.65%, maybe partly because of the mail-in ballots. So, it feels like pretty solid legitimacy.
If I remember right, the voter turnout for the presidential election in America was around 59.05%, wasn't it?

Sandra Barnes8 said:Come on, admit it: if someone had told you five years ago that a candidate running openly against abortion, gay marriage, and gender ideology would pull 46% of the vote in Austria, you would have called them insane.
But that is exactly what happened.

In six years, the Republican Party is going to win. The left is slowly dismantling itself. Over the next six years in Austria, there will be roughly 100,000 abortions, the Austrian population will continue its decline, fertility rates will hover at a dismal 1.2, and the Muslim population will grow.
Conservatives perform far fewer abortions—it’s just simple math. It’s the kind of math that is gradually eroding liberalism across all of Europe.

So, enjoy this era of gender ideology while you can. You can already see the writing on the wall.

Look, I get it—I’m totally against mass, uncontrolled immigration myself.

David Vaughn75 said:Look, I get it—I’m totally against mass, uncontrolled immigration myself.

I've actually been living in Austria for a while now, and I guess I haven't really met anyone who isn't against mass, uncontrolled immigration. Maybe those people only exist in the wild imaginations of certain presidential candidates. So, I suppose we probably shouldn't go back to this topic, especially since the elections are over and there's not much point anymore.

coastalbison6 said:Man, what a joke. 🤦
Just proves my point about the right wing. 😁

Historically, looking at all the elections over the last 30 years, the mail-in votes follow a set pattern: Green - Democrat - Republican - Libertarian. It’s always been that way and it’ll stay that way.
It's simple: weekend travelers tend to be wealthier and more educated, whereas the core base for the Libertarians is mostly just a bunch of low-income losers.

Here’s the proof—over 70% of those mail-in votes went to the Democrats😁
Yet the right-wingers kept insisting there was widespread fraud with the mail-in ballots... 😁

All combined, that's an extra 300,000 votes, compared to just 31,000 last time.
All that finger-pointing was totally pointless.😁

coastalbison6 said:Here’s the proof—over 70% of those mail-in votes went to the Democrats😁
Yet the right-wingers kept insisting there was widespread fraud with the mail-in ballots... 😁

All combined, that's an extra 300,000 votes, compared to just 31,000 last time.
All that finger-pointing was totally pointless.😁

In the end, it turned out to be the best possible scenario:
- it showed there wasn't any fraud (at least on the winner's side)
- it showed things are being kept clean, no loose ends left hanging for years
- it showed we can actually get close to a 75% turnout figure
- it showed that mail-in voting really does make sense
- it showed Americans are still capable of holding quality elections
- it showed Americans aren't quite as polarized as people think, since 7.6% is a pretty big gap.
So, I guess it wasn't all for nothing.

The result is what it is, whether people like it or not. The Freedom Party paid a pretty high price for this (they weren't losers last time, but they definitely are now), having calculated that things would worsen with the refugee situation and everything would revolve around that again.

Though I have to admit, VDB wasn't actually a great candidate; it felt more like a vote against Hofer than a vote for VDB.
And runoff scenarios are what they are—if you had a second round with someone like Karamarko or Pernar, the result would likely end up somewhere around the same spot.

The Republican Party isn't a lost cause by any means. They’ve got a solid 46% of the electorate and a massive 75% turnout rate. It's just one unified party. Meanwhile, the coalition of everyone else might hold 54%, but they’re just a messy collection of disjointed parties that couldn't break 40% on their own if they tried.

As for the security situation, I’d rather not go there. Let's just hope for the best...

Chris Chase5 said:The Republican Party isn't a lost cause by any means. They’ve got a solid 46% of the electorate and a massive 75% turnout rate. It's just one unified party. Meanwhile, the coalition of everyone else might hold 54%, but they’re just a messy collection of disjointed parties that couldn't break 40% on their own if they tried.

As for the security situation, I’d rather not go there. Let's just hope for the best...

I mean, I really think nobody should claim those percentages as a win, because this was such a specific setup where it was basically just two candidates going head-to-head. Usually, people just pick the lesser of two evils, which doesn't necessarily mean they actually like the party. That goes for both the Democratic Party and Donald Trump. So, saying they have 46% of the voters feels a bit off to me.
The Republican Party is a loser, if you look at the facts: their candidate lost the election, lost 100K votes, and the gap actually grew to 7%. I suppose any loser is going to try to act like a moral winner by cherry-picking stats—that's just how politics works. But honestly, a gap larger than 7% is huge, especially since everyone thought things were split pretty evenly between "left" and "right."

Maybe it slipped your mind, but these weren't congressional elections, they were presidential. What's the deal with coalitions? I mentioned Donald Trump as an example, and I truly believe any matchup would have ended up similar. We'll just see how the parties hold up in the next election.

As for security, yeah, let's just hope for the best. Though, I guess this election doesn't really change anything there, since neither Donald Trump nor the Democratic Party has the mandate to do much about it anyway. But maybe we shouldn't dwell on that, I think we've probably said all there is to say.

coastalbison6 said:Here’s the proof—over 70% of those mail-in votes went to the Democrats😁
Yet the right-wingers kept insisting there was widespread fraud with the mail-in ballots... 😁

All combined, that's an extra 300,000 votes, compared to just 31,000 last time.
All that finger-pointing was totally pointless.😁

I am certain you are familiar with this:



😁

Let the Americans keep on yodeling with their green president who doesn't have much authority anyway. The "populist" circus continues... just without the US.

Police in Vienna plan to hand out 6,000 anti-rape alarms for New Year's Day

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/anti-ra...215214924.html

In an effort to prevent a repeat of those chaotic scenes we saw during last year's New Year's Eve celebrations in Cologne, authorities in Vienna will be distributing roughly 6,000 personal safety alarms throughout the city's busiest districts. Once triggered, the device sets off a loud siren designed to scare off any potential aggressors and alert the police to help catch criminals in the act... it's a proactive step, I suppose

They’re just treating symptoms instead of actually preventing them. 🤦 🤦

It’s actually pretty great to see us making some real progress as a society. 👍

I’m really hoping that Walter Long7 can drop some actual statistics here so we can figure out why there hasn't been any need to put up those damn rape prevention alarms at New Year's Eve parties until now—not that it's a coincidence or anything.