I'll count that as you condoning the rhetoric. And yes, what's "worse" is subjective, but one side's rhetoric has led to TWO assassination attempts. That's objectively true.
Hot off the press from Kamala:
Last edited:
60 Years of Democrats calling GOP candidates "Hitler/ Nazis"
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
Hot off the press from Kamala:
Not a coincidence the story starts with ford. Everybody called people fascists back then. But take heart - the 60s relics probably only have a few more years left on this good earth.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL *takes another deep breath* LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Does not know what objectively means.
How many years have republicans called democrats, socialist, communist and Marxist?
No. It means all of that stuff leading up to this moment is a big reason why no one gives a shit about you saying it now. Not that it should be ignored. It's EVERY goddamned election with the socialist and fascist shit. And now there's an actual point to be made but for most hearing it, "the sky is falling" once again.
Also, Flick and all of the idiots who think they are making points in this thread, pretending they didn't argue the same shit against Romney, full throated, are hilarious. That murderous, animal hating, misogynist, Romney!
A lot. Probably more. Is that the closing, pre-election salvo being thrown by them right now, as it is the Dems?
Donald Trump on Kamala Harris.
"But if she ever got elected, she'd change it and it will be the end of our country. She's a Marxist. Everybody knows she's a Marxist."
This is the other reaction that the article is designed to get: "You guys do it too!"
That cheapens the - legitimate - observations about Trump by the classic "both sides" bullshit. Where a reasonable person is supposed to throw their hands up and proclaim both sides are the same and full of it.
Who cares what Republicans have called Democrats? Don't concede the author's point. The author wants everyone to ignore Trump's statements and conduct that can be likened to Nazism and fascism because he found a few examples of Democrats using Nazi/fascism language with respect to past Republican presidents.
He doesn't make the case. It doesn't make sense.
It's not timely when trump continues to call democrats socialist, communist and Marxist? He does it almost every day.
It's an element of the "fill in" vocabulary that she uses to make herself sound smarter and more profound than she really is,.. It's the foundation of her word salad super power...
I see you've forgotten the "lock her up" chants.
Trump threatens to jail adversaries in escalating rhetoric ahead of pivotal debate
Trump posted a warning on his social media site threatening to jail those “involved in unscrupulous behavior” this election.
apnews.com
So repeating what Trump said is violent rhetoric?
Objective truth: There were two assassination attempts on Trump in 2024.
Subjective lie: "One side's rhetoric" led to the attempts.
scum
vermin
animals
enemies of the people
I think that terminology rises to that level and perhaps beyond that level because it dehumanizes other people making them subhuman.
You forgot "poisoning the blood of our country."
There are some posters who argue that Nazis were left-wing. But that’s not the reason lefties bristle when someone refers to Bernie or AOC as a socialist.
I don't agree that it's a big reason at all. Maybe it's a convenient after the fact justification for simple people to ignore the uncomfortable parts with Trump. But I suspect the number of people who are thinking to themselves: "Gosh, Trump sure sounds like a fascist Nazi, but then again William Clay said that about Reagan and Reagan didn't murder a bunch of Jews, I guess I don't give a shit".
Click on the author and check out the titles of the other stories he written. This one is designed to give a permission structure to people to ignore Trump's red flags. He found several examples of Democrats calling different Republicans fascists/Nazis, see they've always done it! It's supposed to work on simple people to connect these dots.
But he doesn't make a persuasive case that these handful of examples are actually representative of the era, nor does he make the logical connection for why these handful of examples should have a bearing on Trump's conduct.
Edit to add: The biggest reason why no one gives a shit about the fascism/Nazi allegations is because they're voting for Trump and they know they wouldn't vote for a fascist/Nazi.
Last edited:
Post from Vlad Vexler Chat
It’s electorally harmful for Harris to call Trump a fascist, even if you think it’s a reasonable label. It’s existential talk which spurs on the politics of ...
youtube.com
I think this comment is relevant. It isn't electorally effective even if there is some truth in the statement. Trump doesn't want to have an opponent he wants an enemy. So I think she is better served to focus on Trump's fitness for office rather than engage him in this type of enemy politics.
If someone hasn't started a world war or perpetrated a Holocaust - yet - are you barred from making Hitler comparisons?
Was Hitler a good guy except for those?
You and the wingnut from the Examiner are intentionally careless with the facts.
You can always find someone who will call any leader a fascist and maybe even compare them with Hitler.
That doesn't mean all Dems and libs are on board with those insults.
You and your idiot author also never bother to ask the question that any reasonable person should ask: In what way is so-and-so a fascist or like Hitler?
Since you don't base your rejection of fascist/Hitler claims on any facts, you end up looking like you are just defending the worst characteristics of those Republicans.
If there were any reason to do so, we could go through the list and identify the ways in which they may or may not have deserved to be called fascist or Hitler-like. But why bother when you and your author are being intellectually dishonest out of the gate?
You'd have to ask the OP. He seems to be the one trying to make rules around this.
"The Third Reich wasn't alllllll bad, amirite? How about those generals?!?!?"
Please walk us through the logic. It sounds like you're trying to sell this syllogism:
1. Mean rhetoric happened.
2. Assassination attempts happened.
3. Therefore the mean rhetoric caused the assassination attempts.
Surely you can see the flaw in that reasoning. So flesh it out for us. Make the syllogism work, if you can.
Sounds like the exact structure of a climate alarmist's arguments. Bad weather happened. SUVs are being driven. Therefore, SUVs created bad weather. Here's your paper straw.
Holy shit, where do we even start when someone is as stupid as you are?
If Ann Frank were hiding in my neighborhood right now, there are a few MAGA neighbors of mine I wouldn’t want to know about it.
Why do you do that?
Does it bother you even slightly that nearly everything you post gives cover to the worst elements in our culture?
I can remember when you weren't this way. So I assume you still have a sense of right and wrong. But maybe I need to revise my impression.
No, it's because they think that democratic socialism is communism. People hear a buzzword on Fox News and think it's bad because they're told it's bad, so yes, I bristle when dumb people say dumb things.
I don't give a **** about then. Right now the Republicans have a fascist running for president. I don't give a shit about some moron back in the 70s. You're just trying to deflect.
Ya, I know, I know, but it's different this time.Two things and btw this is a good point you make.
1) Trump's own former cohorts agree he's at least fascist friendly for sure.
2) Trump's actions in the 2020 election go well beyond what any former President has attempted.
I don't think Trump is anywhere close to Hitler when it comes to rounding up groups of people and doing what Hitler did. I do think he has authoritian tendencies and has already broken the peaceful transfer of power that we ALWAYS had. That's what made America unique imo.
