Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: KDNW, The Trump/Hitler comparisions come not from an expressed desire to engage in a second Shoah but the similaries between Hitler's know-nothing bellicosity and Trump's know nothing bellicosity. Further both Hitler and Trump liked to defend and encourage their followers to "get physical" with their opposition. Trump isn't Hitler but he has some disturbing similarities that mean, for me, there is no way on God's green Earth I will give Trump my vote. There is some likeness, but is it actually stronger than between Sanders and your average socialist dictator? You can list various similarities there as well. But both of these comparisons are based on big exaggerations. I mean, yeah, you could argue that Trump has encouraged his followers to "get physical" with the opposition. But he hasn't created a paramilitary organization of several million armed men that is tasked with murdering, assaulting and otherwise intimidating democratic party officials, voters and journalists. No, what has happened is that some protesters have gotten punched at his rallies. There is a bit of difference in severity there. This reminds me a bit of the Republicans who thought that Obama was going to turn the USA into an "Islamic-Communist" state and send them all to FEMA camps. Luckily that didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 27 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said: Yeah, but you can say the same thing about the Trump = Hitler comparisons that are thrown around all the time too. Last time I checked he hasn't called for death camps in an American occupied Mexico or something either. "If Trump becomes president, I'll reserve judgement until he starves and gasses 11 million people to death". See, if you think Sanders is a communist, you have no idea what a communist is. Whereas what Ser Scot just said applies to the Trump/Hitler comparison of looking at regimes from the start. Communists in Russia did not get a start in government by standing for election for head of state, they started with a revolution and then executing the head of state and all his family. Guess who's back made a very specific comparison between Sanders and Stalin: Stalin was one of the original 7 leaders of the revolution that overthrew the Czarist regime, and who consolidated power in 1924 after the death of Lenin and then to become dictator for 42 years. Not exactly equivalent to Bernie Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: See, if you think Sanders is a communist, you have no idea what a communist is. Whereas what Ser Scot just said applies to the Trump/Hitler comparison of looking at regimes from the start. Communists in Russia did not get a start in government by standing for election for head of state, they started with a revolution and then executing the head of state and all his family. Guess who's back made a very specific comparison between Sanders and Stalin: Stalin was one of the original 7 leaders of the revolution that overthrew the Czarist regime, and who consolidated power in 1924 after the death of Lenin and then to become dictator for 42 years. Not exactly equivalent to Bernie Sanders. Obviously they didn't get a start in Russia by standing for election for head of state. Russia was a monarchy with an emperor as the head of state, so there were no elections for it... For that matter Hitler started with a military coup/revolution as well. It just failed really badly, and made him try the democratic way instead. But FYI I do not think Sanders is a communist, and I do not believe that he would try to become a dictator like Stalin either. I'm pointing out that just as the comparisons between Bernie and the aforementioned Georgian are based on rather shaky comparisons, so are the ones between Trump and Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The Trump/Hitler comparisions come not from an expressed desire to engage in a second Shoah but the similaries between Hitler's know-nothing bellicosity and Trump's know nothing bellicosity. Further both Hitler and Trump liked to defend and encourage their followers to "get physical" with their opposition. Trump isn't Hitler but he has some disturbing similarities that mean, for me, there is no way on God's green Earth I will give Trump my vote. Whereas the comparison of Sanders and Stalin was a massive exaggeration, here you've cherry-picked two extremely common traits partially shared by Trump and Hitler and declared that they have similarities -- completely ignoring the fact that these traits are also characteristic of hundreds or perhaps even thousands of movements through history and around the world. Nativism was around long, long before Hitler -- in fact, the Know Nothing movement which you use to refer to the idea was an American one from the mid 19th century. Likewise, physical clashes between protesters and the group being protested with the approval of the leadership are a basic staple of politics around the world. In fact, the clashes at Trump rallies are relatively tame -- in other countries, people get seriously injured or even killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Both Trump and Sanders respect the results of the ballot box. So any comparisons to dictators and one party groups are way off to start. This is one of the few good things you can say about Trump, imo. Trump has vowed to use big government to go into our neighborhoods and deport millions of people. This is horrific and anyone defending Trump is horrific. All the distractions about if he's a Fascist or whatever just give wiggle room to those who are eager to defend Trump while not appearing as horrific as they truly are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Altherion, Compairing Trump to "Bill the Butcher" isn't exactly complementary either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azul DeLaRosa Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 3 hours ago, GrapefruitPerrier said: Me too. This election has nobody running that I trust to run this nation. That is the scariest thing to me. I am old and never had an election where none of the above was the choice I would make. I liked Clinton and I liked George HW bush and I liked Reagan . The moderates have been slaughtered on both sides, so I guess I am stuck with Hillary ? I'm stuck with her too. Though not enthusiastic, I will caucus for her this month. Not feeling Bernie at all. As an African american the Republicans outright scare me and Bernie seems a but distant and more interested in his base, which is not me, for sure. Somehow I am looking back at Bush and thinking "Maybe he was not that bad." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 I just had a college friend dump me on Facebook because I kept questioning his posts supporting Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 15 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Trump has vowed to use big government to go into our neighborhoods and deport millions of people. This is horrific and anyone defending Trump is horrific. All the distractions about if he's a Fascist or whatever just give wiggle room to those who are eager to defend Trump while not appearing as horrific as they truly are. Again with the exaggerations. What is going on right now in the Middle East (particularly Syria and Libya) is horrific. I assume you are referring to Trump's promise to enforce the law (as required by the Constitution!) regarding the presence of illegal immigrants. It is not horrific, but it is unpleasant -- as is any alternative to Trump's proposal. The status quo is bad because it results in an undocumented underclass which lacks the rights and freedoms necessary to stand up to the ruling class even in the limited way that American workers do and is thus exploited by the ruling class who use them to suppress wages. (Aside: the ruling class also commissions endless studies saying that the wages are in fact not suppressed, but fewer and fewer of the working class believe them any more). Trump's proposal is unpleasant because many people get deported which is bad both for them and, in the short term, for the economy because there will be a shock. Legalizing the illegal immigrants is bad because we already did that in the 1980's and the utterly predictable result was that even more people illegally cross the border thus resulting in the same exact problem, but with an even larger underclass. The problem has been growing for a long time with the tacit blessing of both Democrats and Republicans. I do not see a painless way to solve it. You may not like Trump's solution (and, to be honest, I don't believe he will be able to implement it at nearly the scale that he speaks of), but at least he is talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CryptofCthulhu Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Dr. Sowell with some advice for voters. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 17 minutes ago, Azul DeLaRosa said: I'm stuck with her too. Though not enthusiastic, I will caucus for her this month. Not feeling Bernie at all. As an African american the Republicans outright scare me and Bernie seems a but distant and more interested in his base, which is not me, for sure. Somehow I am looking back at Bush and thinking "Maybe he was not that bad." Well, considering a lot of the foreign policy desaster that is the Middle East can be laid at Bush the Lesser's feet (I wouldn't claim Obama and Clinton were flawless over there, but they got dealt a terrible hand and managed at least one success in getting the Iran deal done), I'd say that yes, he was that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Quote Again with the exaggerations. What is going on right now in the Middle East (particularly Syria and Libya) is horrific. I assume you are referring to Trump's promise to enforce the law (as required by the Constitution!) regarding the presence of illegal immigrants. It is not horrific, but it is unpleasant -- as is any alternative to Trump's proposal. The status quo is bad because it results in an undocumented underclass which lacks the rights and freedoms necessary to stand up to the ruling class even in the limited way that American workers do and is thus exploited by the ruling class who use them to suppress wages. (Aside: the ruling class also commissions endless studies saying that the wages are in fact not suppressed, but fewer and fewer of the working class believe them any more). Trump's proposal is unpleasant because many people get deported which is bad both for them and, in the short term, for the economy because there will be a shock. Legalizing the illegal immigrants is bad because we already did that in the 1980's and the utterly predictable result was that even more people illegally cross the border thus resulting in the same exact problem, but with an even larger underclass. The problem has been growing for a long time with the tacit blessing of both Democrats and Republicans. I do not see a painless way to solve it. You may not like Trump's solution (and, to be honest, I don't believe he will be able to implement it at nearly the scale that he speaks of), but at least he is talking about it. Not an exaggeration at all. Simply Trump's own campaign promise. The reason you don't see it as horrific is you haven't thought this completely out or you're purposely avoiding looking at it because it is indeed quite ugly and horrific, especially in a 2015 context. It would involve a new bureaucracy and some stormtroopers or whatever you want to call them. (Freedom Soldiers maybe?) It would involve going into American neighborhoods, since the undocumented workers won't be politely lined up near the trash cans for pick up. Likely, though you simply don't believe Trump will do it at all and you seem to suggest this in your post at the end. That does not absolve you though, if Trump actually does attempt this or something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Not an exaggeration at all. Simply Trump's own campaign promise. The reason you don't see it as horrific is you haven't thought this completely out or you're purposely avoiding looking at it because it is indeed quite ugly and horrific, especially in a 2015 context. It would involve a new bureaucracy and some stormtroopers or whatever you want to call them. (Freedom Soldiers maybe?) It would involve going into American neighborhoods, since the undocumented workers won't be politely lined up near the trash cans for pick up. Likely, though you simply don't believe Trump will do it at all and you seem to suggest this in your post at the end. That does not absolve you though, if Trump actually does attempt this or something like this. Actually, I have thought this through -- at least far more thoroughly than you have. Think about it: any new bureaucracy or Freedom Soldiers or whatever fantasy means of rounding up illegal immigrants you come up with will require orders of magnitude more money to deploy on a scale large enough to make an impact than all of the immigration agencies currently have combined. Any attempt to do this would require Congress to agree and approve the funds which is extremely unlikely to happen. What a President can do to make a difference is enforce laws with respect to the corporations which openly break the law by employing these illegal immigrants, starting with the largest (getting at all of them is impractical, but if the big ones start getting fined and forced to find legal employees, the rest might fall in line). I didn't think Trump would do this (or really, anything significant at all), but given the intensity of the campaign against him by the establishments of both parties, I'm beginning to suspect he might actually have some viable solution in mind and the ruling class doesn't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirandinha Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 People are being delusional to compare Sanders to Stalin hahahahahha It's funny to observe how North Americans reacts to the "red threat". Wake up, you're not in the sixties anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Again Altherion you're wrong. The president has power to deal with immigration policy as they see fit. Something trump has said is that he will use volunteers to help round up immigrants. He can do that with almost no money at all. He can grant broad pardons for any crimes done this way as well. Furthermore most of the money spent in immigration is not on agent costs - but in processing and court. That drops to nothing if you don't care about due process or court hearings, which he doesn't. He doesn't even have to ask Congress any more than Obama did. And even worse, this assumes a republican Congress wouldn't approve it. Something like 70% of Republican congressmen agree broadly with trumps views and goals of deporting massive amounts of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Again Altherion you're wrong. The president has power to deal with immigration policy as they see fit. Something trump has said is that he will use volunteers to help round up immigrants. He can do that with almost no money at all. He can grant broad pardons for any crimes done this way as well. Furthermore most of the money spent in immigration is not on agent costs - but in processing and court. That drops to nothing if you don't care about due process or court hearings, which he doesn't. He doesn't even have to ask Congress any more than Obama did. And even worse, this assumes a republican Congress wouldn't approve it. Something like 70% of Republican congressmen agree broadly with trumps views and goals of deporting massive amounts of people. The President is not above the law and does not get to ignore due process on a massive scale -- that's a quick way to get impeached, especially if much of your own party is already against you and especially if you are doing something that causes financial harm to the ruling class. Broadly approving something that will never happen is one thing and going up against the people who give you money is quite another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Quote And even worse, this assumes a republican Congress wouldn't approve it. Something like 70% of Republican congressmen agree broadly with trumps views and goals of deporting massive amounts of people. There is one thing they would NOT approve though, which is going after corporations, As Altherion has suggested. Of all the possible scenarios, this is the one thing that is not going to happen. Trump doing nothing is much more likely. Trump's plans for the corporations incidentally involve large tax cuts, much like any GOP nominee. That is the pain he plans to bring them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 The Trump and Hitler comparisons are funny, but admittedly huge stretches. He's more like Berlusconi mixed with a bit of Mussolini. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 There is no guaranteed due process for non us citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 15 minutes ago, Kalbear said: There is no guaranteed due process for non us citizens. Kalbear, I don't think that's correct. The 14th Amendment gurantees due process for all US residents. I think there is a case that stands for that proposition. Let me dig. From the Justice Department: Quote Due Process The due process clauses in the Constitution protect all people, both citizens and non-citizens, by requiring both state and federal governments to follow procedural mechanisms when attempting to take an individual’s life, liberty, or property. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ne/legacy/2012/04/27/Civil%20Rights%20Book-NE-2.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.