You are normalizing what he is saying.
Which is normalizing fascism.
Virtually Indistinguishable from Hitler in 1934
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Which is normalizing fascism.
Regarding what you quoted of my post, the hypothetical was not about the likelihood of Trump saying that (although I wouldn’t put it past him), it was the likelihood of his supporters accepting it and not questioning it.
And I doubt you really want to challenge that assertion.
Didn't see a reply to that last post, so let's try again:
What, specifically, is "wrong" with what Biden and the Dems have accomplished and led?
- Major infrastructure bill, that GOP Representatives ALL voted against, yet now want credit for and show up at the ribbon-cutting events for?
- Inflation Reduction Act, which will lower energy prices for Main St Americans for the next decade or more, pushing all that money that used to go to pay for heating/electricity into the economy for more goods and services?
- Among the LOWEST inflation rates for Western countries following Covid?
- Among the HIGHEST GDP growth among the same Western countries?
- Passing legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate drug pricing, so that Americans are not gouged by pharmaceutical companies, allowing other nations to negotiate cheaper rates?
- Overtly supporting NATO and Ukraine, when your Orange Buddy outright supports Russia?
- Record breaking stock markets?
- Treating trans/gay/bi people with the same respect he treats straight people?
- Negotiating a major border legislation deal that key GOP leaders supported, until Trump told them not to?
- Beefing up the IRS and collecting billions more from wealthy tax cheats?
What pisses you off so much about "Biden and the Dems"?
Because all of these accomplishments are things I see as "positives". Which ones piss you off so badly you'll defend Trump here?
A percentage of Trump supporters would be down with that, no argument.
Is anyone else surprised that TJ didn't point out that Trump's commentary is clearly in English while Hitler's was clearly in German, and that the languages are easily distinguishable?
Well, Hitler was in office in 1934 - I guess that's not a glaring difference
Lol remember when @ottumwan in tx said earlier in this thread that Hitler and the Nazis were socialists? No need to bother with that silliness but it does remind me of the hypocrisy of the most dedicated American patriots. Another great example of America's impeccable record of defending free speech as long as it isn't offensive to John Birch Society members or their antecedents:
That famous Niemuller passage doesn't actually start with "first they came for the socialists." That comes after "first they came for the communists." Why is this usually censored by publishers in sources where Americans usually dig up that passage? I thought we only censored Facebook patriots when they get too close to the truth?
Also why were publishers so keen on not including Orwell's preface to Animal Farm where he blatantly states that he was a committed democratic socialist and much of his work as a writer was to advance his ideals? Why do Animal Farm and 1984 get held up in America as if Orwell was this visionary Tory who gave us the blueprint for why it was necessary for us to become an evil empire to stop an evil empire? Why were his actual political views never introduced and discussed while we were holding up his most famous works as biblical canon for the free world?
We are very fortunate that America has typically reversed course whenever we've decided that free speech was a threat to our ruling class. But why were we taught in high school civics that the Supreme Court used the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" as an obvious practical limitation to free speech but we weren't taught that the case was actually about a socialist being tossed in jail for advocating for popular resistance to the military draft America needed for getting involved in their first major bank bailout (known to history as World War 1)? Why do they leave out the context of the case and just emphasize the part that justifies state oppression of speech?
Why were taught Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was about him being a consumer advocate like Ralph Nader when he was actually a socialist who was trying to report on working conditions?
I actually do hope the blue hair teachers are bothering to educate zoomers and alphas about Marx and other 19th century development of different ways to conceptualize economics/politics, American Marxists and socialists and communists and anarchists, American fascists, and the few decades of intermittent private/state partnership to (often violently) suppress organized labor activity. We're almost left with the impression that organized labor eventually won some protections just because the right politicians came to power and as a result the robber barons hearts grew two sizes on Christmas. Probably not going to serve our nation well in the future if every generation going forward gets the same misleading cold war patriotic education that Boomers, Xers, and millennials got.
That famous Niemuller passage doesn't actually start with "first they came for the socialists." That comes after "first they came for the communists." Why is this usually censored by publishers in sources where Americans usually dig up that passage? I thought we only censored Facebook patriots when they get too close to the truth?
Also why were publishers so keen on not including Orwell's preface to Animal Farm where he blatantly states that he was a committed democratic socialist and much of his work as a writer was to advance his ideals? Why do Animal Farm and 1984 get held up in America as if Orwell was this visionary Tory who gave us the blueprint for why it was necessary for us to become an evil empire to stop an evil empire? Why were his actual political views never introduced and discussed while we were holding up his most famous works as biblical canon for the free world?
We are very fortunate that America has typically reversed course whenever we've decided that free speech was a threat to our ruling class. But why were we taught in high school civics that the Supreme Court used the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" as an obvious practical limitation to free speech but we weren't taught that the case was actually about a socialist being tossed in jail for advocating for popular resistance to the military draft America needed for getting involved in their first major bank bailout (known to history as World War 1)? Why do they leave out the context of the case and just emphasize the part that justifies state oppression of speech?
Why were taught Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was about him being a consumer advocate like Ralph Nader when he was actually a socialist who was trying to report on working conditions?
I actually do hope the blue hair teachers are bothering to educate zoomers and alphas about Marx and other 19th century development of different ways to conceptualize economics/politics, American Marxists and socialists and communists and anarchists, American fascists, and the few decades of intermittent private/state partnership to (often violently) suppress organized labor activity. We're almost left with the impression that organized labor eventually won some protections just because the right politicians came to power and as a result the robber barons hearts grew two sizes on Christmas. Probably not going to serve our nation well in the future if every generation going forward gets the same misleading cold war patriotic education that Boomers, Xers, and millennials got.
Look, Trump said he would only be a dictator for Day One of his second term. Just one day.
If by “percentage of Trump supporters,” you mean 99.7%, then, yes, we are in agreement.
Lemme guess, it’s Team Trump whose veracity is unimpeachable, as they are clearly the victims of the Ministry of Truth. Is that the gist of your comment?
This thread is so 1984ish.
Okay, so you aren’t going to clarify what you meant by referencing George Orwell.
Duly noted.
I don’t think more than half would support “round up all the brown people.” But “round up all the Mexican immigrants” would ship them into an ecstatic frenzy.
Further, I think they would mostly be on board with rounding up all his political enemies. Something like this:
I hope you’re right about the number who would support that.
I’m convinced, though, Trump could convince the vast majority of them of just about anything.
Oh gosh. You know you’re right for once. But even a blind chicken finds a worm now and then.
And you got Coach Paris to hit the like button. Brilliant. 🥴
You actually think 72M of your fellow Americans would be fine with this...
“We need to round up all brown people and put them in internment camps until we figure out what the hell is going on,”
I don't.
Right? Kinda presumes no brown people support Trump- which is kinda racist. MAGA comes in all sorts of crazy and colors.
No they are just showing that his temperament appears to be very similar to Hitlers and using similar terminology. You call him a baffoon but want to downplay the damage he can do to the US if put back in power again.
Last edited:
Goldstein’s Book
Ignorance Is Strength
1. I. There are 3 kinds of people in the world, the high, middle and low.
2. I. The splitting-up of the world into 3 great super-states was an event which could be and indeed was foreseen before the middle of the 20th century.
3. I. The 3 super states are always at war. They have been at war for the past 25 years.
4. I. To understand the nature of the present war-for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war-one must realize in the first place that it is impossible to be decisive.
5. I. All the disputed territories contain valuable minerals, and some of them yield important vegetable products such as rubber.
6. I. The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standards of living
7. I. But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction-indeed, in some sense was the destruction-of a hierarchical society.
8. I. Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods.
9. I. The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor.
10. I. War, it will be seen, not only accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way.
11. I. All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith.
12. I. But none of these projects ever comes anywhere near realization, and none of the 3 superstates ever gains a significant lead on the others.
13. I. None of the 3 superstates ever attempts any maneuver which involves the risk of serious defeat.
14. I. Under this lies a fact never mentioned aloud, but tacitly understood and acted upon: namely, that the conditions of life in all 3 superstates are very much the same.
15. I. In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat.
16. I. But when war becomes literally continuos, it also ceases to be dangerous.
17. I. The war, therefor, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture.
Bernie Sanders and The Squad are more comparable to Hitler than Donald Trump.
The issue is that individuals like you tend to ignore the facts that are stated or the implications. Its no different than the immigration discussions I have had with you. You refuse to acknowledge that we are all illegals here (this should be indians land) and are truly illegal, never had proper paper work coming over. However in most cases in the past the US as a country (not necessarily individuals) was welcoming and willing to give anyone an opportunity at a better life. Hence the melting pot designation, and lady liberty. However we don't hear much talk of that. Its not individuals looking for asylum or a better life - they are illegals (a derogatory term) to effectively get the base fired up. We refuse to pass laws that will fix the issue, because it may decrease the republicans chance at winning the election. I am fine with new candidates. However the platfrom that you follow wants to elect trump, and of the two options I take Biden each and every day.
If there are still 72 million people in 2024 supporting Trump, then the distinction you’re trying to draw doesn’t even matter.
To answer your question, I obviously threw a random number out there for effect. With that said, I didn’t think we would ever have a front runner for a major party’s nomination for president not only publicly invite Russia to attack US allies but to say he would applaud it. I have yet to hear a Trump supporter disavow that. Have you?
So, no, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt from me. On top of that, the Trump supporters who would be uncomfortable with that idea would just go through another curious round of mental gymnastics to explain it away. So, in that sense, they would be complicit by choosing to bury their heads in the sand.
Again, I don’t think Trump will ever say something to that extreme, but the problem is his rhetoric really isn’t that far from it. And, since the original point is about the enabling practices of all Trump supporters, we do have plenty of data on how they respond to the outlandish shit Trump says. Guess what? There’s not a lot of variance.
In short, these people are ****ing Idiots and will rationalize just about anything.
That's pretty much how things played out in 1930s Germany...
Exactly.
Trump may not be Hitler, but that does not mean his supporters are somehow wiser and more ethical than many German people in the 1930s. In fact, given the level of desperation in Germany at that time, I would say Trump people are more ****ing deplorable.
He really resembles and acts like Mussolini , though.
I wonder how he looks hangin’ by his heels?
ONE MORE TRY (as you continue to avoid addressing any of these points)
@Finance85
What, specifically, is "wrong" with what Biden and the Dems have accomplished and led?
- Major infrastructure bill, that GOP Representatives ALL voted against, yet now want credit for and show up at the ribbon-cutting events for?
- Inflation Reduction Act, which will lower energy prices for Main St Americans for the next decade or more, pushing all that money that used to go to pay for heating/electricity into the economy for more goods and services?
- Among the LOWEST inflation rates for Western countries following Covid?
- Among the HIGHEST GDP growth among the same Western countries?
- Passing legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate drug pricing, so that Americans are not gouged by pharmaceutical companies, allowing other nations to negotiate cheaper rates?
- Overtly supporting NATO and Ukraine, when your Orange Buddy outright supports Russia?
- Record breaking stock markets?
- Treating trans/gay/bi people with the same respect he treats straight people?
- Negotiating a major border legislation deal that key GOP leaders supported, until Trump told them not to?
- Beefing up the IRS and collecting billions more from wealthy tax cheats?
What pisses you off so much about "Biden and the Dems"?
Because all of these accomplishments are things I see as "positives". Which ones piss you off so badly you'll defend Trump here?
