I’d not call it green-washing, but realistic politics focussed on finding possible majorities through compromises, without insisting on maximum demands, ideologically speaking. This is often interpreted as “greens doing conservative politics”. In reality, they are doing the right thing. Just at a slower and less radical rate than some (like me) would like. I accept that. Due to the nature of the system, some progress needs to happen slowly in order to not disrupt it.
If disruption is your goal however, than yeah, the German Green Party is really bad at that.
I am surely willing to argue with you, if you are able to stick to facts instead of emotionally perceived truths.
The Traffic Light coalition had to balance Germany’s pro-Israel stance with growing criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. After an initial phase of strong support (due to Germanys so called “Staatsräson”), the coalition became more critical, slashed arms exports in 2024 compared with 2023, and provided major humanitarian aid to Gaza. Saying they “cheered for genocide” is polemical and mislead. Maybe you should reconsider your news sources.
Also, nuclear power is not a viable path for Germany. New plants are too expensive, take too long to build, and offer hardly any practical advantage over faster expansion of renewables, grids, and storage. The Greens acted accordingly. You COULD criticize the ban of nuclear power in the first place - but that was the doing of the CDU/SPD, not the Greens.
I somewhat agree with you regarding taxation. They could have done more. But then again: they were in a coalition with two parties, that are ideologically very different. It’s far from precise to measure a partys moral by the actions of a coalition in which they were a junior-partner. Stop dealing in absolutes.
I’d not call it green-washing, but realistic politics focussed on finding possible majorities through compromises, without insisting on maximum demands, ideologically speaking. This is often interpreted as “greens doing conservative politics”. In reality, they are doing the right thing. Just at a slower and less radical rate than some (like me) would like. I accept that. Due to the nature of the system, some progress needs to happen slowly in order to not disrupt it.
If disruption is your goal however, than yeah, the German Green Party is really bad at that.
Removed by mod
I am surely willing to argue with you, if you are able to stick to facts instead of emotionally perceived truths.
The Traffic Light coalition had to balance Germany’s pro-Israel stance with growing criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. After an initial phase of strong support (due to Germanys so called “Staatsräson”), the coalition became more critical, slashed arms exports in 2024 compared with 2023, and provided major humanitarian aid to Gaza. Saying they “cheered for genocide” is polemical and mislead. Maybe you should reconsider your news sources.
Also, nuclear power is not a viable path for Germany. New plants are too expensive, take too long to build, and offer hardly any practical advantage over faster expansion of renewables, grids, and storage. The Greens acted accordingly. You COULD criticize the ban of nuclear power in the first place - but that was the doing of the CDU/SPD, not the Greens.
I somewhat agree with you regarding taxation. They could have done more. But then again: they were in a coalition with two parties, that are ideologically very different. It’s far from precise to measure a partys moral by the actions of a coalition in which they were a junior-partner. Stop dealing in absolutes.
Removed by mod
I have no interest in continuing a discussion on that basis, so I am leaving it here.
Removed by mod
Then, I’d like to see a source for her literally saying thid.
For this too, please.
Removed by mod
You’re the one making the claim, so you should have and provide the sources.
So I kindly ask you again, as I am genuinely curious.
I think this guy is a lost case.
Removed by mod
So I take it you won’t provide sources for these statements of yours?
So do the quick Web search and proof it?