If you say that banning a party because it plans to destroy democracy itself destroys democracy then you are talking of democracy as am absolute. So after banning the party democracy vanishes and we live in a not democratic state anymore. That’s not the case though. It would still be a democracy. Banning a party is a dilemma, either you let the people have their say which is more democratic and then after you have let them then you don’t have a democracy anymore or you don’t and then you have less of a democracy in the sense that one position of planning to completely destroy democracy is not allowed but it still is a democracy on all the other issues at least.

As for whether the party will use loopholes to destroy democracy: that’s a complex issue and difficult to determine. We may not agree on that. That’s why we leave it to a court to settle.

Banning parties isn’t always anti-democratic. The reason why is a bit unituitive so I explained it quite detailed but I believe that’s necessary. Take for example a hypothetical party X. Party X will use legal loopholes to effectively destroy democracy when it gets into power (restrict free speech, manipulate ballots, lock up the opposition, etc.) . Now party X gets the majority. That creates a situation where Party X stays in Power indefinitely. Now at some point the majority of people people change their mind and now they wouldn’t vote for the party anymore so the government isn’t representative of the people anymore. But it doesn’t matter anymore because democracy is dead in the country now. So now the people have to go through the whole establishing democracy process again which costs many lives and many years of living under oppression. That could have been skipped if party X had been banned. Now the problem remains that a majority of people weren’t represented in a election. That’s obviously bad. However keep in mind that the only thing we need to ban to skip all those years of oppression is to ban a single thing that party’s just aren’t allowed to do. And that thing is being antidemocratic. So banning that one single thing allows us to keep all the other nice thing that democracy has to offer.

Is’bound in your right eye’ a typo?

No it’s not anti-democratic. The parties can’t ban the AFD only initiate the process. Whether the AFD is antidemocratic and a has the ability to undermine democracy is decided by the highest court. Precisely so they can’t just ban the opposition.

Ty

A cool screenshot I took

The highest german court does. It’s beholden only to the constitution. The guidelines are are quite strict and very specific:

“Parties that, in view of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany must be declared unconstitutional (cf. Art. 21(2) first sentence of the Basic Law). According to the Federal Constitutional Court’s case-law, the mere dissemination of anti-constitutional ideas as such is not sufficient. To be declared unconstitutional, a party must also take an actively belligerent, aggressive stance vis-à-vis the free democratic basic order and must seek to abolish it. In addition, specific indications must suggest that it is at least possible that the party will achieve its anti-constitutional aims.” From the website of the court

I think it’s OK. It looks very normal in this video. Not perfect is fine for a Pope who wanted the grave of a normal person.

One Problem I could see with that is that your raised foot still needs to go somewhere. And if the resistance through the path up through your leg and to some part of your raised leg and then from there through the air back into the ground is lower than the one of the path through the ground from your lowered foot to the end of the aforementioned path then the lightning would still travel through your lower body.

One is on the right side. The other on the left

Nah. Jesus is rising from the dead and the pope is joining them

Are those nails? Ot brainworms camouflaging as nails?