Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
GMC Forum _ CHILL OUT _ Anti Trumpers
Posted by: jstcrsn May 29 2016, 02:40 AM
This seems to be what to many argue like in this country, and then they call us haters
Now I am not a trump supporter, but my vote would be more to keep this guy and who he thinks would be right for this country out
Posted by: Todd Simpson May 29 2016, 08:01 AM
If the people vote Trump in, then he deserves his chance. I"m not a fan personally but that's beside the point really. Our entire system is supposed to be "By, for, and Of, The People". So if the majority of People want Trump as the commander in Chief, then that's how it should be.
I'd rather we see Bernie in the office but that's neither here nor there. If Trump does get to the highest office in the land, it reminds me of the movie IDIOCRACY where pro wrestlers become president and such, just because they have massive name recognition. 
The demographics of the states are changing and NOT towards the "way it used to be" instead, as a people we are becoming more and more diverse and more and more we are seeing Minority groups become the Majority of citizens. So It seems like the last gasp of a changing system that will not go out without one final fight. Within a generation, I doubt there will be a republican party left at all. But we shall see
So go and vote for whomever you want to vote for. Just make sure to vote
Todd
Now I am not a trump supporter, but my vote would be more to keep this guy and who he thinks would be right for this country out
Posted by: klasaine May 29 2016, 09:13 AM
Both the far left and the far right have always acted like ideological morons.
The tide of publicity tends to shift every couple of decades.
Bernie's more radical front is not doing anything positive to help his cause the same way planned parenthood clinic bombers do nothing to help the conservative cause. They're all a bunch of fucking idiots. The news focuses on them - even though they're not the majority of either faction - because the general populace are a bunch of fat, stupid, xenophobic, one dimensional sloths who eat that shit up like it's the new form of masturbation.
When the dust clears, it will most likely be Hillary in November. Whatever - status quo.
If the Donald gets elected(?), so be it. It'll be fun to watch.
Posted by: Spock May 29 2016, 11:33 AM
Great videos!
I can't wait for Trump to squash Hillary and force people to look at the trail of corruption they've been on for decades.
The fact that Trump and Sanders are still in this race makes this the most exciting election I have ever been a part of, and I think one of the biggest in the history of our nation.
This will be the first time I vote for one of the 2 parties for president and I'm proud to say I'll be voting for Trump.
Posted by: AK Rich May 29 2016, 06:12 PM
Todd
Not so sure this is the case as more and more , minority groups are coming to the realization that the policies of the left are actually what is keeping them down on the democrat plantation.
As far as the death of the Republican party goes. The left has done everything they could to bring this about by demonizing conservatives and the republican party quite unfairly by labeling them as some kind of far right extremist hate group on every issue
that has come up in the last 8 years going back to before the election when Obama was first elected. And when Trump wins in a landslide it will be a result of Karma in full effect. And if there is any justice, Hillary will be on her way to prison
and Obama will fade into obscurity other than being named as the worst president in the history of the nation.
Posted by: fkalich May 29 2016, 09:44 PM
I'd rather we see Bernie in the office but that's neither here nor there. If Trump does get to the highest office in the land, it reminds me of the movie IDIOCRACY where pro wrestlers become president and such, just because they have massive name recognition.
The demographics of the states are changing and NOT towards the "way it used to be" instead, as a people we are becoming more and more diverse and more and more we are seeing Minority groups become the Majority of citizens. So It seems like the last gasp of a changing system that will not go out without one final fight. Within a generation, I doubt there will be a republican party left at all. But we shall see
So go and vote for whomever you want to vote for. Just make sure to vote
Todd
Hillary has 14% support from white males without a college education. That pretty much sums it up. Trump has the same primary demographic base of support that Adolf Hitler had.
Bernie never had a chance. This has happened before, with much less left leaning candidates. By November their support always dwindles and they are pounded. And I myself am most in agreement with Bernie, but he is not electable, I don't care what the May polls say, people don't know him yet, they won't vote for a guy perceived as a socialist, it is a dirty word to most Americans.
b.t.w., Eva Braun was also 23 years younger than Adolf, same age spread as between Trump and his wife.
Posted by: jstcrsn May 30 2016, 01:22 AM
Bernie never had a chance. This has happened before, with much less left leaning candidates. By November their support always dwindles and they are pounded. And I myself am most in agreement with Bernie, but he is not electable, I don't care what the May polls say, people don't know him yet, they won't vote for a guy perceived as a socialist, it is a dirty word to most Americans.
b.t.w., Eva Braun was also 23 years younger than Adolf, same age spread as between Trump and his wife.
pretty much sums up the left , calling us stupid unedjumicated Nazi racists , but you forgot that hitler was for NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY , and with that and the 23 year age gap reference you just put your reasoning in the league with the two in the video . Thanks for clearing things up
Posted by: klasaine May 30 2016, 03:44 AM
Ha, ha!
This thread could be as good as the campaign season.
Go Kansans!
Posted by: Todd Simpson May 30 2016, 10:48 PM
I wasn't going to bring Hitler up so I'm glad someone else did it for me The same sort of vague, emotionally directed, pandering is what won Adolf a series of political victories. None of the rank and file politicians seem able or willing to use the same techniques against Mr. Trump, and as a result he is tapping in to the frustration of masses and turning it in to a presidential campaign. You can't fault his political instincts though. He's a master of persuasion for the Masses. Just like that other guy was And when Mr H won office, it didn't end well. I hope it goes a bit better for the Mexicans than it did for the Jews if Mr. T becomes president.
I can already guess the response that these two posts will bring from a few of our more conservative members. But before anyone gets too riled, this is just a thread in a forum on the web talking about politics. It's no reason to become overly invested emotionally or intellectually.
I was going to leave Trumps wife out of it entirely but you make a valid point about the age spread. Not to say there is anything wrong per say with May/December romances as such. Just another odd coincidence.
Todd
Bernie never had a chance. This has happened before, with much less left leaning candidates. By November their support always dwindles and they are pounded. And I myself am most in agreement with Bernie, but he is not electable, I don't care what the May polls say, people don't know him yet, they won't vote for a guy perceived as a socialist, it is a dirty word to most Americans.
b.t.w., Eva Braun was also 23 years younger than Adolf, same age spread as between Trump and his wife.
Posted by: Rammikin May 30 2016, 11:33 PM
It's undeniable that Trump's supporters skew towards a particular demographic: less educated old white men. These people are bitter. Bitter that their blue collar jobs are gone and are not coming back. Bitter that whites are becoming a minority. Bitter that their religious views are not shared by as many as they once were. Bitter that they hold less of a voice in politics than they once did.
That's understandable. The problem is these people are are latching on to a message that, rather proposing to solve problems, instead is all about blaming their troubles on others, especially people who do not look like them.
None of this means Trump supporters are hateful or stupid. It just means they want to hear that somebody else is responsible for their misfortune. And yes, that is precisely the message that brought Hitler to power in the early thirties
Posted by: AK Rich May 31 2016, 04:09 AM
You guys are seriously going to compare what's going on with Trump in this election cycle to the rise of Hitler? This is going to be the centerpiece here for the argument against Trump? Unreal.
Come on, you can do better than that.
It's pretty obvious to me that if there will be another comparable to Hitler in modern times, that person or movement will come, or is already coming from the Middle East and certainly not from the USA.
Try those parallels on for size. I think you will find they match much better.
And to those that would say conservatives play the victim and want to blame someone else for their problems. You have it backwards. You have in reality just described the platform Obama stands on and the narrative the left pushes as well as the mindset of the vast majority of the democrat/socialist base.
With them , all their problems lay at the feet of Bush or any conservative for that matter, or the rich and wealthy.
In reality, much like a spoiled child, it is the left that continually plays the victim and everything that happens to them is someone else's fault and will take responsibility for nothing other than to take credit for something they had nothing to do with if it suits them.
Oh, and if we disagree with the views or policies of the left it can only be because we are either racist, bigoted, soulless, heartless, homophobic, xenophobic or whatever other label that will work to stifle any honest debate.
We have tasted this for the last 8 years and it's time to spit it out and grow up.
Posted by: Spock May 31 2016, 11:08 AM
It's as if people that are opposed to Trump do not listen to his message at all but read a script written for them - exactly like the kid in the video above.
To compare Trump to Hitler is completely idiotic. Trump is NOT against immigration, he is against ILLEGAL immigration - why is that so hard to understand? Why is the idea of building a wall to keep illegal aliens from pouring over the border so alarming and what about that is racist?
Shouldn't every American be concerned with the job situation in the U.S.? You have people demanding $15 an hour for minimum wage work yet it's mean old white men that are pissed over losing jobs? What kind of logic is that? Does nobody remember the United States before NAFTA? That was when we actually had a manufacturing base and our nation wasn't a government service industry.
Is it "racists" to want to rely on our own energy resources as opposed to having to deal with nations that hate us? Seems like a great idea to me. The left couldn't bash Bush enough for having ties to the Saudi Family - so now Trump comes along and wants to cut ties from foreign oil and he's a racist bigot.
Isn't it a good idea that we have better relations with Russia? Putin is definitely winning the PR war against the west and he should be. Our media is as crooked and tainted as his government PR mouthpiece RT (Russia Today). But Putin does have a legitimate gripe with U.S. foreign policy as it concerns our missile around his borders. What would it be called if he tried to put Russian missiles near our borders - The Cuban Missile Crisis.
Also, how is it that people can't understand that Trump is not truly a republican but simply ran under the party as a vehicle to the White House. The republican establishment hate his guts, so does the media - and now the left do. Until now the left was sure the republicans and media would have taken Trump out but now he has become their problem (which fills me with glee). 3rd party candidates never come close to winning, so it was a strategically smart move for Trump to run as he did. Look at what happened to Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul - remember those guys? Trump was the only one truthful enough to raise his hand when asked if he would consider a third party run if he didn't win the republican nomination. He was chastised by the other candidates and forced into signing a contract stating that if he didn't win the nomination he would throw his support behind the republican nominee - yet he will not be receiving the same respect. Doesn't matter now though - he won and it's a mute point. The Republican party was crushed by the voice of Americans. If this isn't a peaceful revolution I don't know what one is.
Trump is pushing an "America First" agenda. What's wrong with that? What is wrong with making sure countries we enter into trade deals with abide by the same rules we are forced to abide by? "China" "China" "China".
We are run by corporations that do not have the best interest of Americans at heart. Another devastating treaty will be the TPP https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/22/the-trade-deal-explained-for-people-who-fall-asleep-hearing-about-trade-deals/
There's nothing racists or xenophobic about wanting to "Make America Great Again". It's looking out for our nation's best interest.
So - if there's an interest in maintaining this thread, why don't we actually discuss the issues because all the assumptions put forth so far about Trump and his supporters demonstrate nothing but a total lack of education - and really just makes the 2 videos above that much more legitimate.
Posted by: jstcrsn May 31 2016, 11:16 PM
Posted by: Todd Simpson May 31 2016, 11:57 PM
The comparison between Trump and Hitler being made (by me and a couple of others) is very specific and only relate to his approach toward the electorate. The things that are similar between the two folks in question is in how they are approaching the people and the tools being used to persuade the electorate. The arguments are mostly from an emotional place rather than being detailed and concrete, also, both appeal to the frustration of the Middle class or what used to be the middle class. Both guys used these tools to to get results and it works. Both used very powerful techniques of persuasion. Both had good instincts and knew how to play to a room. It's not that anyone is suggesting that "Trump = Hitler". Just that both men are using a very similar playbook to get elected. The making of personal attacks on anyone that dares question them, keeping the platform vague and instead focusing on slogans, making improbable/impossible promises, etc. ALL politicians do this to some degree But not to this degree. The last time I remember seeing this approach was in fact way back when on documentaries focusing on how Mr H made it in to public, elected office. So let's not lower ourselves to calling each other "idiotic" or to using any sort of personal attacks, as this is public forum, meant for folks to express themselves. We don't have to do what they do and come down on each other just because we disagree. Civil discourse, should be, at the very least, "civil"
The demographics of the trump voter are also well known. Nobody is trying to brush every trump voter as less educated and blue collar (or formerly blue collar), but, the polls do show that the bulk of his fans fall roughly in that camp. This is not a disparagement, the bulk of Americans can be said to fit in to that group. Only 35 percent of Americans roughly, complete college. So the bulk of us, are a bit less educated than the minority of us that did complete one ore more college degrees. Here is a handy chart of a study by ABC news published in the washington post. They didn't make up these numbers. It's just a poll. Take it for what it is 
It does show that the Trump voter on average is White, Male, makes less than $50,000 per year, didn't complete a college degree and is either Evangelical Christian or Catholic. This can be said to be most of middle America, so again not a disparagement. Just a fact.
On the news cycle now I see Trump taking a press conference and calling one of the journalists a "Loser" on national television rather than discussing the issues or why he was irritated at all. He instead, just started name calling. This is one of the things that many folks find so disturbing. The President is supposed to be "Presidential" and not one to resort to name calling just because he comes under scrutiny. I might react that way, or any regular person, but we are not running for president. But still, if people vote him in then he will be President and hopefully will take the country in a good direction Worst case, he can be swapped in four years for a new model. (that last sentence is not a pun on trumps succession of young "model" wives, it's just a sentence that uses the word model)
To Rammikins point, YES. There has been a precipitous decline in the earning power of folks without a college education in the past several years. Good paying blue collar jobs have gone away, and been replaced by low paying service sector jobs, if at all. Here is a link to a study which looks at quarter of a century of income data. It shows the rampant decline of the blue collar worker in general. This demographic is understandably very angry and frustrated with the "system" as a whole. Trumps timing has been perfect here. He is really connecting to a HUGE segment of the population that is doing far worse than their parents did and they are very concerned for their childrens future. This is "Playing on Fears" which is a very persuasive technique indeed. It's these folks that make up a large portion of Trumps "Base" and rightfully so IMHO. They see him as the ONLY way out of an impossible situation.
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/Employment_Earnings_Occupations_Changes_1990-2013_FINAL_1.pdf
here is the main quote
"Over the past quarter-century, the types of jobs held by less-educated workers have shifted significantly,
with important consequences for their earnings. Men and women with less than a bachelor’s degree are
less likely to be working full-time and full-year, and those who continue to work have been moving
away from traditional, blue-collar, middle-paying jobs—such as truck drivers, construction laborers, and
factory workers—to lower-paying service jobs. The shift to service jobs can explain between one-sixth
and two-fifths of the overall decline in annual earnings for the typical worker without a bachelor’s
degree. Men and women with that degree—or more—have stayed in professional and managerial
occupations and seen their earnings rise, although even among these groups, some have fared better than
others.
The labor market will likely continue to change in the years and decades ahead. A return to the
traditional occupations of previous decades is unlikely, but there is already some indication that new
opportunities are opening for American workers who may not have a bachelor’s degree but possess the
skills demanded by tomorrow’s economy. Whether these opportunities will lead to widespread
economic prosperity for a majority of workers is an open and pressing question. "
T
Posted by: AK Rich Jun 1 2016, 01:07 AM
Civil discourse, should be, at the very least, "civil" You could say the same about Obama and various other elected officials throughout time in different countries around the world to some extent. It means absolutely nothing. What you have described and stated yourself is essentially what politicians do. Obviously the level of success varies. So what's the point?
Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 1 2016, 05:40 AM
The only point I was trying to make is that no presidential candidate I've ever seen, or heard of has done the things we are talking about to this level. Not to mention the name calling of journalists and anyone else who dares question the man on anything he doesn't want to talk about. Also, tried to make the point that he is making entirely emotional arguments in lieu of actually policy proposals. He is appealing to that large chunk of the country that is represented in that second chart I posted. Showing the declining income and status of what used to be the Blue Collar Middle class. They are angry and bitter and they have good reason to be. So for them especially, he doesn't need to be too precise on policy. Just say things that are red meat to these guys and it's working. So two points really But just those.
Just for equal time on videos. Here is one where a guy reads Hitler Quotes to Trump supporters and says that the quotes are from Trump. The Trumpers then agree with every quote until the guy tells them it's really quotes from Hitler. Before they are told it's HItler, they justify each and every one. Some of them are really horrible quotes but they still agree and say heck yeah!!
Here is ABC news segment where the anchor mentions that the PRESIDENT OF MEXICO said Trump was using the Tactics that Hitler used to get elected.
*HITLER COMPARISON STARTS AT 2;35*
So it's not just a few folks on the board here that have made this connection. In fact, One head of state has done so, and there are
wads of tests online now to see if folks can tell the difference between lines from Trump and lines from Hitler. Most folks can't tell any difference. Try this quiz. IT's just one of many
TRUMP OR HITLER?
1. “Do not compare yourself to others. If you do so, you are insulting yourself.”
2. "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
3. “Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”
4. "Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies ... and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food."
5. “If you win, you need not have to explain ... If you lose, you should not be there to explain!”
6. “I do not see why man should not be as cruel as nature.”
7. "The more economic difficulties increase, the more immigration will be seen as a burden."
8. "Great liars are also great magicians."
9. "I can fight only for something that I love, love only what I respect, and respect only what I at least know.”
10. "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless."
11. "Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized."
12. "Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."
13. "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
Even GLENN BECK (conservative, far right, talk show/radio show guy) made the comparison.
“You know, Adolf Hitler — we all look at Adolf Hitler in 1940,” Beck said. “We should look at him in 1929. He was the kind of funny, character that said the things that people were thinking. Where Donald Trump takes it, I have absolutely no idea.”
Here is the video of Glenn Beck on ABC NEWS making the comparison of Trump to Hitler.
So it's actually a widespread idea from folks all over the political spectrum. Except of course, from his "base" which (per that first graph I posted) is mostly white, under 50k a year, male, older, etc I fit most of those boxes myself, as does the bulk of the male electorate. And I'm Southern. So folks sorta expect me to be a Trumper. But I see some very bad things that do remind me of some very bad things from the past and I can't help but point them out.
I know the supporters will dismiss all of this of course. But that's ok. We can disagree on politics and still agree on Music, guitar, and other important stuff
Posted by: Spock Jun 1 2016, 09:52 AM
That first video is as fake as it gets - terrible acting and Glenn Beck is a whack job that said Ted Cruz was foretold by the prophets.
We like Trump because we are anti-establishment. We are sick of Washington politics and the way this country is being run. We are sick and tired of illegal immigrants and the politicians that never do anything about the problem. We are sick and tired of having our depleted military over-extended throughout the world sticking our nose where it does not belong. We believe if our troops are to be placed on foreign soil for the benefit of some other country then we should be paid for it instead of the tax payers. We can't stand the idea of another puppet politician owned by corporations or George Soros pushing a globalist agenda. We're sick and tired of political correctness and liberals screaming racists at every remark someone makes.
We don't want to see another Clinton in the White House - the wife of the man that signed our country away in NAFTA and we don't want a Bernie Sanders that would attempt to turn the U.S. into Cuba or Venezuela.
It is apparent that the Republicans and the Democrats are pushing for the exact same agenda. Sure they appear as 2 different ideologies and squabble over things people can't agree with at the dinner table, but the ultimate goal for both parties is the same thing - socialist globalism.
Donald Trump throws a monkey wrench in their collective spokes.
As far as calling that reporter "sleaze" yesterday - he deserved it.
As far as the "Hitler Comparison", look at whose calling him Hitler. Besides Glenn Beck and Vincente Fox it's rank and file liberals. The accusations are completely baseless.
We can just as easily make some bogus chart of demographics that show Clinton or Sanders supporters as the same that supported Joseph Stalin.
And don't forget, Hitler was a socialist - like Sanders, ideologically Sanders and Clinton are much more in line with the policies of Hitler than Trump is.
Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 1 2016, 12:11 PM
[quote name='Todd Simpson' post='732893' date='Jun 1 2016, 05:40 AM']In regards to the Glen beck video
all the times you tell us we are not allowed to use "faux " news . and now it is a substantial news source .Classic
Posted by: klasaine Jun 1 2016, 03:14 PM
Do I personally think the Donald is another Adolf?
No, but I think a couple of definitions and some history is in order ...
National Socialism is misnomer. It had nothing to do with Marxist style 'socialism'. Hence the National in front of it.
Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself (nor a communist) but he actually hated these ideologies and did as much as he could to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia (a socialist country since it's revolution in 1917) in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living room' for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.
The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was/is built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.
When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions. He supported the actions of leading industrialists - actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.
*The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.
While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology (remember, Mussolini came first). Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.
At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, antisemitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length.
Hitler’s National Socialism wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divisions, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.
Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power . There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefited and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps.
It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:
"As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement … the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period."
*The psychology and sociology of this campaign season is much more interesting than who'll actually get elected.
Both Sanders and Trump appeal to some base frustrations of a lot of the populace. Though I personally think that most of that frustrated populace doesn't really understand how politics or government actually works and that neither Bernie or Donald will be able to enact 1/10 (if anything?) of what they propose.
Even if Hillary doesn't get elected, it'll be like if Hillary did get elected.
Posted by: AK Rich Jun 1 2016, 07:27 PM
But just those.Just for equal time on videos. Here is one where a guy reads Hitler Quotes to Trump supporters and says that the quotes are from Trump. The Trumpers then agree with every quote until the guy tells them it's really quotes from Hitler. Before they are told it's HItler, they justify each and every one. Some of them are really horrible quotes but they still agree and say heck yeah!!
Here is ABC news segment where the anchor mentions that the PRESIDENT OF MEXICO said Trump was using the Tactics that Hitler used to get elected.
*HITLER COMPARISON STARTS AT 2;35*
So it's not just a few folks on the board here that have made this connection. In fact, One head of state has done so, and there are
wads of tests online now to see if folks can tell the difference between lines from Trump and lines from Hitler. Most folks can't tell any difference. Try this quiz. IT's just one of many
TRUMP OR HITLER?
1. “Do not compare yourself to others. If you do so, you are insulting yourself.”
2. "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
3. “Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”
4. "Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies ... and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food."
5. “If you win, you need not have to explain ... If you lose, you should not be there to explain!”
6. “I do not see why man should not be as cruel as nature.”
7. "The more economic difficulties increase, the more immigration will be seen as a burden."
8. "Great liars are also great magicians."
9. "I can fight only for something that I love, love only what I respect, and respect only what I at least know.”
10. "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless."
11. "Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized."
12. "Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."
13. "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
Even GLENN BECK (conservative, far right, talk show/radio show guy) made the comparison.
“You know, Adolf Hitler — we all look at Adolf Hitler in 1940,” Beck said. “We should look at him in 1929. He was the kind of funny, character that said the things that people were thinking. Where Donald Trump takes it, I have absolutely no idea.”
Here is the video of Glenn Beck on ABC NEWS making the comparison of Trump to Hitler.
So it's actually a widespread idea from folks all over the political spectrum. Except of course, from his "base" which (per that first graph I posted) is mostly white, under 50k a year, male, older, etc I fit most of those boxes myself, as does the bulk of the male electorate. And I'm Southern. So folks sorta expect me to be a Trumper. But I see some very bad things that do remind me of some very bad things from the past and I can't help but point them out.
I know the supporters will dismiss all of this of course. But that's ok. We can disagree on politics and still agree on Music, guitar, and other important stuff
For heavens sake. Isn't this just typical election year mud slinging and dirty politics? Except that it is coming form liberal media instead of a candidate, which is no surprise at all since these talking heads are activists masquerading as journalists. What possible conclusion are we to draw from these comparisons? What is being said here without actually saying it other than that if Trump is elected then the US will be responsible for the next holocaust and we will see the genocide of Muslims and Latinos? Isn't this the underlying message that is being sent without actually saying it? The true point of making the comparison? Talk about fear mongering.
And it's nothing new as I have said. Both Bush and Obama have been compared to Hitler but not by mainstream media as best as I can recall. It is just another lame attempt by liberal media to sway the masses away from a candidate that threatens their ideology. they are the lapdogs of the establishment.
It is interesting that you posted that first video about the Hitler quotes and Trump supporter. You know, you can sit a whole afternoon and watch videos taken on college campuses and hear all kinds of idiocy coming out of the mouths of our so called best and brightest. Apparently a college degree doesn't mean what it used to and it's a good thing we don't measure intelligence by how many or what kind of degrees that someone has.
It is no surprise that college students and grads lean left since public schools and universities have become more and more about social indoctrination than they are about higher education these days. And it is no secret that public education and institutions of higher education are predominantly run and managed by left leaning ideologues.
The results of the last two congressional elections sent a clear message to the establishment as to what the will of the people was and it was ignored so we have no confidence in them to represent us. So it is them, and the media who we also have no confidence in that are largely responsible for this situation. Enough is enough.
Oh and one more thing. It seems to me that it is the left and so called progressives (socialists) in this country that have the fascist tendencies that are more comparable to the National Socialist Party of Hitler. Just sayin'.
Posted by: jstcrsn Jun 2 2016, 01:48 AM
The results of the last two congressional elections sent a clear message to the establishment as to what the will of the people was and it was ignored so we have no confidence in them to represent us. So it is them, and the media who we also have no confidence in that are largely responsible for this situation. Enough is enough.
Oh and one more thing. It seems to me that it is the left and so called progressives (socialists) in this country that have the fascist tendencies that are more comparable to the National Socialist Party of Hitler. Just sayin'.
listen to the line at 5:40
Posted by: Todd Simpson Jun 2 2016, 03:10 AM
Thanks very much for this klasaine Your explanation and history is clear and concise. Not to mention it saved me wads of time searching down sources and typing all this out. You are 100% percent correct in all of this. However, it I fear it won't matter. Folks who are hell bent on Trump are going to vote for him no matter what. As is their birthright. But I appreciate your analysis quite a bit and agree with all of it. As does history. Well written
That said, for everyone who wants to vote Trump, go ahead I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out things I see happening and links to historical context. The first video I posted isn't fake sadly. It was just a trap to get Trump supporters to look bad. Which is does. But again, doesn't matter as nobody who supports him would ever believe it. People will believe what they want. Also their birthright so I"m all for that.
In short, I"m just glad to have you involved in this discussion. Thanks very much for the post
No, but I think a couple of definitions and some history is in order ...
National Socialism is misnomer. It had nothing to do with Marxist style 'socialism'. Hence the National in front of it.
Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself (nor a communist) but he actually hated these ideologies and did as much as he could to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia (a socialist country since it's revolution in 1917) in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living room' for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.
The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was/is built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.
When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions. He supported the actions of leading industrialists - actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.
*The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.
While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology (remember, Mussolini came first). Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.
At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, antisemitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length.
Hitler’s National Socialism wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divisions, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.
Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power . There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefited and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps.
It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:
"As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement … the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period."
*The psychology and sociology of this campaign season is much more interesting than who'll actually get elected.
Both Sanders and Trump appeal to some base frustrations of a lot of the populace. Though I personally think that most of that frustrated populace doesn't really understand how politics or government actually works and that neither Bernie or Donald will be able to enact 1/10 (if anything?) of what they propose.
Even if Hillary doesn't get elected, it'll be like if Hillary did get elected.
As another poster pointed out, "National Socialism" had nothing to do with actual Socialism other than borrowing part of the name. The explanation by Mr. K is quite good and worth a read.
Also, I"m not trying to say anyone shouldn't vote for Trump. Everyone has the right to vote any way they like. The first vids posted in this thread could easily be called "fake" by the oher side of the argument as could really any video at all. Just having a little political discourse is all
I'm not angry at anyone and I"m not throwing mud, or calling names or anything like that. Not suggesting that you are, just saying that I"m certainly not and that I'm trying to take a tone of calm. There really is no point in getting upset about a political discussion thread. It's just a thread. I was pointing out a few things that seem historically linked to me and providing some hard data/charts on just who the "base" is for Trump. Not throwing mud, just offering some facts. These facts relate directly to my historical argument as that same demographic in other countries has voted in some really bad folks due to the frustration that you are talking about. That frustration can lead folks to vote in people that are not always good for a given country. That's my only point here.
Letting frustration and anger guide your anyones voting decision is just never a good idea and Mr. Trump has
found a direct line to tap in to this frustration at washington, general distrust of immigrants, and ideas of protectionism and tribalism.
It's really those ideas which I'm against. It's our diversity that has made us strong. The 11 million "illegals" do work that nobody else would do (like picking fruit all day for $5). They are not taking jobs anyone else would want. They pay more in taxes than they take in services, Trump is playing on the fears of a larged chunk of the U.S. fear of the "other". Building walls, creating protectionist trade deals, etc. In short, ISOLATION in an increasingly globalized world. His message has found a home and he may be our next president. If he is, I fear it will go very badly for our nation and we will bear the stain of it for generations to come.
But again, that's just me
Just my thoughts. One guy in one thread having a talk. No reason for anyone to get too cross. I do get the vibe that the supporters are getting upset so I"ll let someone else have the last words as this will be my final post since I want to get back to guitar related stuff. After seeing the first post, just wanted to post something from the other side to balance it out. That's done now. Thanks for the chat guys always fun
Posted by: AK Rich Jun 2 2016, 06:21 AM
Sorry Todd but I just couldn't let this one slide. The estimate by DHS from 2010 ending in January 2011 was 11.5 million undocumented, or unlawful, foreign-born persons. So you are half million short and 5+ years in the past with that number unless we are to believe that 500 thousand left and no more have arrived since then.
I also disagree with the "illegals do the work that nobody else will" statement but I am not going to go into that since we have already discussed this in another thread some time ago. It's that third sentence that got my attention. "They pay more in taxes than they take in services."
I am leaving a link so that you can read this paper (The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer) in it's entirety if you like. It is a long read but here is a portion that gets to the opposing view of your statement.
Thanks for the back and forth, Todd. No hard feelings here man. Rock on!
Many politicians believe that households that maintain steady employment are invariably net tax contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. Chart 5 shows why this is not the case. As Table 2 shows, unlawful immigrant households have high levels of employment, with 1.6 earners per household and average annual earnings of around $39,000 for all workers in the household. But with average government benefits at $24,721, unlawful immigrant households actually receive 63 cents in government benefits for every dollar of earnings.
To achieve fiscal balance, with taxes equal to benefits, the average unlawful immigrant household would have to pay nearly two-thirds of its income in taxes. Given this simple fact, it is obvious that unlawful immigrant households can never pay enough taxes to cover the cost of their current government benefits and services.
Net Annual Fiscal Deficit. The net fiscal deficit of a household equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. As Chart 6 shows, when the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average unlawful immigrant household had a fiscal deficit of $14,387 (government expenditures of $24,721 minus $10,334 in taxes) in 2010.
For the average unlawful immigrant household to become fiscally solvent, with taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received, it would be necessary to increase the household’s tax payments to 240 percent of current levels. Alternatively, unlawful immigrant households could become solvent only if all means-tested welfare and nearly all public education benefits were eliminated.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)