Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Spaztecs

100-year-old Holocaust survivor compares Trump to Hitler

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Slapdad said:

100 year old women from Nazi German can be biased Democrats too. There was nothing that she said in that article that pointed to any specifics being the same as Trump other than "When I see his rallies, it's like what I saw in Nazi Germany" and it seems, as someone pointed out already, to be hyperbole. The author of that article goes on to make his own assertions such as the comment about owning a book of Hitler's speeches, which is a bit much, especially considering that it was reportedly given to him by a friend and it was brought up during a contentious divorce. The author also points to attacks on mainstream media, which is lauded by nearly everyone in this country and deservedly so, and "huge rallies", which is no different than what every president and presidential candidate (outside of Biden this year) has done for the past 100 years. 

As others pointed out, post WWI Germany was a very different place than the U.S. today with an economy that was in shambles and people were desperate to do anything to change that. And they did.....unfortunately. Trump is an egotistical asshole, but he's no Hitler. 

It's funny because you and Los Aztecas actually seem to be saying the real reason this can't happen is this isn't 1930's Germany....not that Trump would for sure not be as bad...and I agree with that but some of us have a hard time being honest that we don't see Trump stopping himself....

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Los_Aztecas said:

There are a few reasons I'm not worried. 

1) While Hitler and Trump have some similarities in their psychological profiles, I'm pretty sure that Trump doesn't believe he was sent from god to save America from the evil immigrants and democrats. (He's not an insane, schizophrenic, delusional psychopath).

you do know many of Trump’s evangelical supporters believe exactly the above.   Attending weekly church services is one of the most predictive factors of a person being pro-Trump

23 minutes ago, Los_Aztecas said:

2) I believe in United States. The electorate is going to vote him out. He can't control the country with as little support as Hitler actually had.

I hope you are correct.  The election results will be soon.   I have found many underestimate the threat and will vote for him anyway or vote third party.

23 minutes ago, Los_Aztecas said:

3) We gotz gunz.

Realistically every social, political and judicial norm that we have cultivated for 170 years would have to fail. I just don't see this as a thing.

Does the left wing?  The country is especially at risk to a right wing authoritarian take over because the left wing is much less armed and trained and the military leans right wing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Outside of a disaster that disrupts the food supply or something, it can't.  

God Bless America.

I disagree.  I might have agreed before I watched the sham of an impeachment trial and Trumps takeover of the party.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

You mean expand the second amendment, right?

No by your reasoning it should be eliminated.  
 

If the structure of the government institutions are so strong to withstand any authoritarian take over than an armed populace is un-needed.   Your core principles are logically incongruous.   

if you believe, like I do, that a takeover by an authoritarian like Trump is possible than an armed population is needed for potential resistance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

No by your reasoning it should be eliminated.  
 

If the structure of the government institutions are so strong to withstand any authoritarian take over than an armed populace is un-needed.   Your core principles are logically incongruous.   

if you believe, like I do, that a takeover by an authoritarian like Trump is possible than an armed population is needed for potential resistance.  

No, it would take a disaster.  Disasters happen.  The House making a horribly weak case for impeachment is not a disaster.  

Tyranny can come in all shapes and sizes.  For example forced gun buy backs.  Or, let's say we had a deadlier virus and the food chain got disrupted and we could not keep the grid up, it would hamper the ability of large federal government to operate effectively but I could absolutely see mayors' and governors and local leaders take up a tyrannical helm to "keep the peace" and take what belongs to you for redistribution.

The second amendment has also been defined by the SCOTUS as a right to self defense.

Fail.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Amash is a good politician, he's wrong.  By the standard democrats in the House set every time the executive and the house is split we will have an impeachment.  Huzzah.

Well he and I would both disagree.... actively soliciting, using US assets, a foreign government to investigate a political rival and obstructing any investigation into it is a standard by which any President should be impeached.   

It will be interesting what becomes of the libertarian party after this election.   To grow into a major party it would have to attract libertarian leaning people from the left and right.   I think the failure of many libertarians to directly oppose Trump will prevent that from ever happening.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

No, it would take a disaster.  Disasters happen.  The House making a horribly weak case for impeachment is not a disaster.  

Tyranny can come in all shapes and sizes.  For example forced gun buy backs.  Or, let's say we had a deadlier virus and the food chain got disrupted and we could not keep the grid up, it would hamper the ability of large federal government to operate effectively but I could absolutely see mayors' and governors and local leaders take up a tyrannical helm to "keep the peace" and take what belongs to you for redistribution.

The second amendment has also been defined by the SCOTUS as a right to self defense.

Fail.

 

The second Amendments purpose is to defend against a tyrannical federal government.  Keep digging.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

No, it would take a disaster.  Disasters happen.  The House making a horribly weak case for impeachment is not a disaster.  

Tyranny can come in all shapes and sizes.  For example forced gun buy backs.  Or, let's say we had a deadlier virus and the food chain got disrupted and we could not keep the grid up, it would hamper the ability of large federal government to operate effectively but I could absolutely see mayors' and governors and local leaders take up a tyrannical helm to "keep the peace" and take what belongs to you for redistribution.

The second amendment has also been defined by the SCOTUS as a right to self defense.

Fail.

 

Forced gun buy backs would not be tyrannical if it was determined the 2nd Amendment isnt needed because the structures of government would prevent an authoritarian regime... (not my position)

Face it, some libertarians have lost bucketfuls of credibility. 

1) on one hand they argue Trump isn’t an existential threat because our government structure would prevent any authoritarian takeover

2) the 2nd Amendment is paramount to provide a means to overthrow an authoritarian takeover.

@smltwnrckr this doesn’t apply to you...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Forced gun buy backs would not be tyrannical if it was determined the 2nd Amendment isnt needed because the structures of government would prevent an authoritarian regime... (not my position)

Face it, libertarians have lost bucketfuls of credibility. 

1) on one hand they argue Trump isn’t an existential threat because our government structure would prevent any authoritarian takeover

2) the 2nd Amendment is paramount to provide a means to overthrow an authoritarian takeover.

 

 

One, I do not speak for all or even many Libertarians, most on this board do find Trump to be an existential threat.

The Second Amendment is paramount for many reasons.  The SCOTUS has decided in three cases this century that have established the second amendment as an individual right and fear of tyranny was not the crux nor mentioned in any reasoning.

From the Majority opinion in Heller

"The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment."

9 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The Federalist papers would disagree.  And btw you are welcome to post your decisions otherwise.  Happy to read them. 

See above.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...