First projections of EU Parliament election results

There are even more, included in Nonaligned. The German Nazis (afd 16 seats) were kicked out of ID

Not to mention they were kicked out of the Nazi group, because THEY WERE TOO EXTREME FOR THEM. Wake me up in 5 years when we can hopefully stop this...
- kicked out of the Nazi group, because THEY WERE TOO EXTREME FOR THEM
  
  I was going to joke suggesting that, but you already had my joke crushed by reality being exactly that 😢
- On paper they were more extreme, the right loves to be seen as not that far right when in fact they are
- I have a horrible feeling that this is the beginning of a terrible slide. The racists will use this opportunity to be as obstructionist as they can and then scream in their home countries about how inefficient the EU is, and because the EU is so far away from home for most people, they'll believe them. And then we'll slide further.
SIXTEEN!?

sorry, I gotta vomit.
- Second strongest party in germany as a whole and strongest in east germany. Ahead of all member parties of our current government.
  
  Thanks ~~Obama~~ Merz and Springer. Their constant Ampel bashing really fucked everything up.
  
  The Ampel may have gained control over the government at the worst possible time. Everything is currently shit and people always blame the government, even though some of that is not under their control, which currently places blame on the only three important center-left parties. Thus people turn right.
  
  unfunny thing though is, that most of the shit we have to deal with right now comes from the time CDU/CSU was in charge.
  
  I... I'm so fricking done.
  
  And the CDU blames them for everything they fucked up the past 20 years.
  
  It's a tale as old as time. Conservatives fuck up so many things that they can't be fixed in the one term other parties occasionally get. And when those then fail to fix everything, people go "see? They're not better. Might as well vote conservative again."
  
  Even worse; the Greens get blamed for shit the FDP does, because people don't know how coalitions work.
  
  Who are these people?
  
  Merz is the faction leader of Germans Conservative and Christian party CDU.
  
  Springer is a magazine publisher known mostly for the newspaper Bild.
  
  Ampel is the name of the current German government coalition: SPD (red), FDP (yellow) and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (Green)
  
  I see, thanks! "Conservative & Christian" sounds like a red flag.
  
  If it helps to put it into more perspective. Those conservatives or CDU somewhat recently visited republicans in the US and figured that it might be a good idea to copy how they do politics in the US to apply it in Germany. But making noise is unfortunately what works even if it's not actually correct or an issue at all.
  
  I just had the sudden urge to downvote your comment just because I hate what you said so much.
  
  Thing is, they would've probably gained even more votes if they didn't incur so many scandals recently. People will probably forget about those until the next national elections
  
  and on the other hand, Mannheim and Sylt kinda helped them.
  
  Not sure about Sylt, but Mannheim was devinetively in their favour.
  
  I saw postings on twitter and YouTube where teenager were outraged that the government didn't get that L'amour Tojours was just a harmless memes. So a few idiots voted in favour of AfD in response.
  
  I think they mainly lost votes because of BSW. Putin dick-riders can now choose, their scandals usually don't matter to their voters
And ID got 30 seats in France. Macron is having a new election on the 30th and well
- I am ashamed of my fellow citizens for making this happened. 35 seats, they get 35, RN + La France Fière (Zemmour).
- Can anybody explain his thinking? Why would you hand the fascists the wheel?
  
  He’d be handing over only the parliament, just in time for them to mess up the country enough for the next presidential election.
  
  That sounds an awful lot like what Hindenburg / von Papen thought they could do.

Afd result is mind boggling

around 16.5% yeah, that is not just mind boggling but also fecking disheartening.
I blame it on the greens for not fielding Habeck as chancellor candidate. I'm probably going to be salty about that one for the next 40 years.
- Sadly you can blame it on FDP for blocking every single positive thing this government might have done.
  
  We could've had a Green-Red or at least Red-Green government is what I mean.
  
  ...but, no, the Greens said "there's no female chancellor candidate, there must be one, therefore we will field a politician who's at least two magnitudes less electable" -- and that after no less than 16 years of Merkel. As if anything had to be proven on that front. As if self-congratulatory symbol politics would ever have gotten us anywhere.
  
  I don't disagree that Habeck would have been the better candidate, I just don't believe he would have changed the outcome by that much.
  
  In the end I think much of the difference between polls and election came from people saying they want climate protection, but in the end the yearly flight to Mallorca was more important.
  
  people saying they want climate protection, but in the end the yearly flight to Mallorca was more important.
  
  Nope that's cope. Classical green cope pattern, btw: "The people have a good heart but the devil of carbon is whispering in their ear".
  
  Firstoff: No, people are aware that there might be some quality of life changes involved in climate change. The question they're asking is not "whether" but "do they make sense". "Do they lead somewhere".
  
  Secondly: Sleeper trains and ferries exist. In principle you can fall asleep in Spandau and wake up in Palma.
  
  Thirdly, because it's been so much fun: Who the fuck thought mandating houses to get individual heat pump installations was a good idea -- I mean I get it, members of the green party are usually well off, they bought one of those and thought it would be a great idea for everyone. Thing is: Ask scientists, they're saying district heating is the much better solution. When it comes to resource usage, overall cost, and definitely cost for the home owners.
  
  But the Green party would never field a candidate to win, or a policy to be popular, or that failing, to be actually efficient because y'all are too busy driving your Cayenne to the farmer's market. And I mean what I say there: The Greens are considered hypocrites, caring about a gazillion things but nature and people's relationship with it.
  
  Classical green cope pattern, btw: "The people have a good heart but the devil of carbon is whispering in their ear".
  
  You're misrepresenting me, I never said anybody had a good heart. People are hypocrites. In theory they are all for the greater good as long as their own personal cost is zero.
  
  Secondly: Sleeper trains and ferries exist. In principle you can fall asleep in Spandau and wake up in Alma.
  
  And how is that relevant to what I said? What point are you trying to make here? You can also bike to work, many people still prefer to drive.
  
  Who the fuck thought mandating houses to get individual heat pump installations was a good idea
  
  First, nobody ever planned to mandate that. It's a lie made up by Bild and the FDP. From the very beginning the only thing the heating law was going to mandate was that your heating had to run on 60% (I believe, don't cite me on the exact number) CO2 neutral energy. Heat pumps are just automatically assumed to fulfill this condition, regardless of the current energy mix in Germany. But it was always going to be up to you how you fulfilled this condition.
  
  Second, it IS a good idea. You can instantly lose one entire set of pipes going into your home and you instantly more than halve your carbon emissions even with the current energy mix. Yes it works, yes it also works in a cold winter, and no you don't have to instantly insulate your entire home, renew your roof and all your internal piping. At least not if you don't live in a farm house from the 1930s that never had any work done.
  
  Third:
  
  Thing is: Ask scientists, they're saying district heating is the much better solution.
  
  Which is an option and would have been an option under the original law.
  
  Also, what actual scientist says that, as an absolute, no "ifs", no conditions?
  
  Because the thing is, if your district heating runs on fossils, which most do, it does jack shit to combat carbon emissions and helps exactly zero.
  
  Also, getting hooked up to district heating isn't free either.
  
  It also doesn't help if your city maybe sorta plans to start planning district heating to be eventually implemented some time in the 2090s, but only if we have enough money and the next 20 governments don't change the plan along the way. Emissions need to be reduced now, not some day in the future if we feel like it. Decentralized solutions are faster and can be implemented by individuals without waiting for political decisions that could happen in 10 years or never.
  
  This is an excuse to not have to act, nothing more.
  
  Which is an option and would have been an option under the original law.
  
  It is not a realistic option because the federation isn't giving municipalities access to the capital needed to invest in that stuff.
  
  Decentralized solutions are faster
  
  No. Decentralised solutions need decentralised work which more often than not is a higher total amount than if there was some kind of centralisation -- also "municipal level" is not exactly the pinnacle of centralisation. With district heating a municipality needs a couple of specialists dealing with the actual heating part, installation workers which can be any plumber, not just specialists, and road workers which are a completely different pool. For a decentralised solution you need a gazillion of specialists, of which there are not enough. You need to order a gazillion of individual heat pumps and guess what companies aren't able to deliver in those numbers. Want to get a heat pump installed today? Call a company, they'll tell you that they'll be able to squeeze you in for an initial assessment in five years.
  
  And this was known. The studies comparing different approaches had been made. Of course they were made this is Germany. And the Greens went ahead and said "we'll take the one that our members feel comfortable with, where they can feel superior to everyone else because they've been ahead of the curve". The biggest obstacle to Green policies in Germany is not the voter, but the insistence of the Green party to smell its own farts.
  
  Greens and SPD never had a majority in any poll at the time and they weren't even close to it. Greens might have been stronger but probably SPD weaker in turn. We might have ended up with Jamaika in the end. Don't forget that a conservative anti-Habeck campaign would've also been possible. He had some unpopular positions back then, too, like giving weapons to Ukraine. What kind of insane warmonger amirite?
  
  What kind of insane warmonger amirite?
  
  That's some Fundie shit. Seriously, noone but Fundies consider Realos to be war-mongers. They're also the only ones considering "Olivgrün" an insult. It's like vegans acting surprised when noone cares about their moraline-sour opinion of vegetarians.
  
  Conservatives wouldn't have been able to touch Habeck, either, the man can quarrel with SH farmers calling him a clueless city boy and come out on top with everyone respecting him. Remember his Israel speech? Where one was left wondering "that was damn good, why isn't the chancellor doing that"? "why isn't the foreign minister doing that"? The answer is simple: Because neither of them are able to. They had to ignore their actual functions in government to get the message out.
  
  Giving weapons to Ukraine was not popular back then, on the contrary. Habeck got a lot of shit for his statements, not only from his own party but all the other ones including conservatives.
  
  I agree that he is much better rhetorically than Baerbock but I don't think he would have made Chancellor or even if he made Chancellor, green-red would not have made it, they would have needed the FDP anyway.
- That might have been a strategic mistake idk, but it's not as bad as the cxu and many more parties straight up copying nazi talking points and steering the discussion towards the afd and against the GrEeNs _°o°
  
  The newspapers are also to blame.
- rise of the far right all over Europe I blame the greens of Germany for it
  
  Nah, mate, this is about the structure of media ownership. I won't be one to defend the greens of Germany, they're disgusting, but the real problem is that private media have interest in the right winning the elections, and there's also a ton of money spent boosting far right influencers in social media

I'm voting as hard as I can, okay 🥵

I wish you could just vote harder
- Well, you can vote harder. The polls are not the only place you vote. Every purchase is a vote. Most people neglect their consumer power. I’m boycotting hundreds (if not thousands) of harmful companies and products, including Amazon. You can always vote harder by investigating the shops and brands you support. You can investigate whether your bank invests in the fossil fuel energy and change banks (or better, become unbanked). You can follow the !climate_action_individual@slrpnk.net community.
  
  E.g. certainly one small thing @lurch@sh.itjust.works can do is ditch sh.itjust.works for a different instance. Website weight has quadrupled since Cloudflare took hold because CF encourages web admins to create heavy websites. sh.itjust.works is CF-based.
  
  My god... "Consumer power" is a myth, there's no evidence of it working for anything significant. "consumer power" will NOT help preventing the rise of the extreme right wing in Europe. Organize your workplace, create tight communities in your local area, strike and protest, create safety networks... Those are the things that are actually proven to work.
  
  My god… “Consumer power” is a myth, there’s no evidence of it working for anything significant.
  
  I guess you are not following Gaza. McDonalds in Israel decided to give free meals to Israeli soldiers. McDonalds customers who boycott Israel impacted McDonalds’ bottom line. And it’s a franchise. The McDonalds shops in Israel had different ownership than McDonalds outside Israel (where the boycott was impacting). So in response McDonalds HQ directly bought out all Israeli branches in order to stop the support to Israeli troops, just to protect their brand.
  
  Lidl and Aldi both started taking a hit in Europe because their produce from Israel was being boycotted. Aldi got caught removing the origin label from their produce when Israel was the origin. Lidl got caught falsifying the label by displaying a different region. If the boycott was insignificant, there would be insufficient motivation for a grocery chain to commit fraud against their customers. So I boycott the whole Lidl chain and Aldi North, not just Israeli products.
  
  Organize your workplace
  
  Or boycott without organising, as this person did:
  
  https://slrpnk.net/post/4687232
  
  Here’s what does not work: not boycotting.
  
  Boycotts only lack effect when in fact they are not executed. IOW, the apathy you advocate weakens the strength of boycotts. The shitty attitude that boycotts don’t work is the sole factor that disempowers boycotts from working.
  
  Wow man, Aldi changed a label, we're almost there!

Not sure if we should call them Nazi, as they kicked out the German Nazis, as explained in other comments. Maybe call them nationalists or ultra nationalists?

They kicked out the German Nazis because they celebrated the SS, which is a no-go for French Nazis. Doesn't make them less Nazi, just the French kind that doesn't like to be killed by German Nazis
- But what is a Nazi? I thought someone who praises or follows the idea and ideology of Hitler Germany. So if someone says „ah this sounds too much like hitler or what is closest followers would say, therefore I dislike it“ can you then really call them a nazi? If someone think „this is to German“ can you be a nazi? After all Nazis where also German ultra nationalists, who think people who are not German are of less worthy. So since other nationalistic parties follow this ideology, but just replace Germany by their own country, I think Ultra nationalists is better fitting. You would also not say Japanese Nazis or Thailand Nazis. Or if you would say Argentinia Nazis, people who know should understand something very different.
  
  It's only Nationalsozialismus if it's from the Nationalsozialismusregion, otherwise it's just sparkling fascism
  
  Ah never thought about this origin. So Nazi means basically someone who supports Socialistic Nationalism, no matter for which country? ! Did not think about this but it makes sense.
  
  Yeah, it's short for National Socialism which was just a rebranding of Fascism in Germany to get Workers on board. So I guess Fascism is the better term to use in any case but seriously, it's just different flavours of the same shit so I think it's a mood point to differentiate. They all support the same ideology and policies

Don't forget ECR :(

ECR is shit, they're a bunch of eurosceptic, anti-immigration, libertarian conservative nationalists, but they don't hold a candle to ID, who are that, but on steroids.
- Libertarian nationalist? Isn't that mutually exclusive?
  
  Oh yeah, but not if you're only libertarian against laws that tell you not to exploit people or destroy the planet.

I bet they say the same thing about you.

either you didn't picked up my sarcasm or...?
- I'm terribly bad at picking up sarcasm.
  
  I'm also sorry for not marking it as such.