Instigator / Pro
0
1438
rating
7
debates
14.29%
won
Topic

Which Political Party is More Closely Aligns With the Nazis? Democrats or Republicans?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Con
0
1629
rating
348
debates
65.66%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
It is nothing new for Democrats to call a Republican president "Hitler" and compare the Party as Nazis, they have been doing it for several decades.  In FrontPage Magazine, Daniel Greenfield traced the Hitler analogy to Goldwater and Nixon and Victor Davis Hanson recalled how both Reagan and Bush were compared to Hitler. However, the attacks really come out when Trump was elected president. However, not only did they smear Trump as a Nazi, but they threw in the Republicans and their supporters in the basket as well. Here are some examples:


And I could go on. However, the evidence points out that those who are calling people "Hitler" the most are the ones who actually promote the form of government that Hitler and the Nazis (one could also include the Soviets, Fascists and all other authoritarian governments) espoused. How is this so? Well, let me lay it out.
First of , what is Nazism? the body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer. 1 
The Nazi Party was actually called the National Socialist German Workers' Party, with Socialism being its focus.

Democrats Have the Same Economic Philosophy

Here are some of the points from the Nazi Manifesto that Democrats advocate for:  
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood andway of life for the citizens.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations. (Obligations being the negative.)
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
13. We demand the nationalization of all associated industries.
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole nationaleducation program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education andsubsequently introduction into leading positions.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long asthey do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. 2
All the above have been heavily promoted by Democrats in the last decade.

Democrats Have the Same Governmental Philosophy

The government philosophy of both the Nazis and the Democrats is the total control and regulation of all services by the Government. Government, not the individual counts. To them, the individual cannot think for himself, cannot be himself, for if the individual is allowed to think for himself or is to be himself he could pose a danger by throwing everything the government has planned out of sync. This is why the Nazis controlled and the Democrats seek to control the school systems and make sure they teach only government approved ways to think. If any professor is teaching to the contrary the school will part ways with him for fear of losing government funding. Individual responsibility is thrown out by authoritarian governments. The Nazis threw the responsibility on the Jews for their economic disaster. The Democrats throw the responsibility on white people (especially white men) for all the evils of society in America today. The individual is to be demonized against the group think of the opposing side. The Nazis did this by persecuting political, religious and civil opposition, first they prevented public debate, then they closed businesses and lastly they resorted to assassinations all in order to cause the opposition to conform. The Democrats today also push for conformity and cannot debate any of the issues and cannot stand important people who disagree. They will demonize those who hold other opinions and will prevent them from speaking their mind (ie. Piers Morgan or Sharon Osbourne on the left and forget about having people on the right on any talk show). For totalitarians there is never tolerance there is only conformity.

Democrats Use the Same Tactics

The Nazis and the Democrats use the same tactics to silence the opposition. As already addressed above they will use the media, academia, entertainment and even civilians to work together to silence the opposition. 
The main stream media rarely have conservatives on their show in order to debate topics and when they have one they begin to demonize and falsely accuse them of things that they are not on another panel. The MSM lies for the Democrat party or cover up or even seek to cover up news stories that will hurt their party. While voter fraud was happening in the 2020 election the MSM at first denied it and then said there was not enough to change the election and they threatened anyone who opposed that idea or wanted to challenge it in court. When it came to the courts, the courts dismissed the cases on standing (not on evidence) mainly because many of them were threatened. In Michigan when a couple of people contested the election, they were threatened to change their vote against their conscience. In 2020 we saw the MSM downplay the violence that happened all summer where private citizens businesses and private property were destroyed and over a dozen people lost their lives. We have seen Democrat governors kill off older folks and the MSM still invite them on their shows and give them awards (until politically inconvenient). The academia, some times taught by domestic terrorists (such as Bill Ayes, a friend of President Obama), promotes false r semi-false narratives about America's founding and promote the ideologies of group think from the Democrat Party, indeed most of academia send support to the Democratic Party and if you disagree you will lose your job. Civilians that vote Democrat can take to the street and burn businesses and government buildings and only two or three will be arrested and then bailed by Democrats and their supporters, but when any one on the far right breaches a government building the hunt is on and they grab them by the hundreds. Democrats also look to ban books that go against the ideology that the 
When one studies the beginnings of the Nazi take over of Germany we see the same results. The opposition media was shut down, brown shirts took to the streets burning businesses of not only Jews, but of the opposing party as well. In the academia, if you did not spew out the talking points of the Nazi Party you were ostracized and fired. Any books written against Nazi ideology were banned and later burned. Goebbels, the Nazis' head of propaganda turned out news in the way that would only benefit the Nazis staying in power and would lie and demonize all opposition. The Nazis were good at threatening any opposition who spoke up against the Party. For totalitarians there can be no disagreement there must only be conformity. This applies to both Nazis and Democrats who cannot live in a country with differing ideas. As the Nazis demonized large groups of people in Germany so the Democrats demonize a whole group of people in America. The Nazis eventually got  to the point where they made fellow countrymen (Jew and Gentile) second class citizens and then started to exterminate them. The Democrats are slowly moving in that direction as they are just like the Nazis of the early 1930s. Soon will we see concentration camps? We already can hear many Democrats talking about reeducation camps for the opposition...the Democrats are fine with genocide as they have shown in the past (slavery) and as they show in the present (abortion, infanticide and euthanasia) so why wouldn't they go further?
The individual is nothing, only the government matters.

Con
I give my opponent another Around to flesh out their case.
Round 2
Pro
My case has been made.
Con
P = Party
D = Democrat(s) the P
R = Republican(s) the P
DS = D supporters
RS = R supporters
N = Nazi

'is vs was' semantics.

There is a clear difference between is and was in English grammar as they talk about different periods. Is and was are used as different tense forms of the root verb ‘to be.’ We use is in the present tense whereas we use was in the past tense. More specifically, we use is in present continuous tense as in the sentence ‘He is eating food.’ On the other hand,the verb was is used in past continuous tense as in the sentence ‘The bird was flying to its nest.’

Now, it is indeed possible that Pro means 'has been' as well as 'is' but it is essential that we appreciate that we are primarily discussing the parties as they are today, not some point in the past.

I will now like to present some rhetorical questions.

  • Which P would hardworking immigrants want to avoid being in charge of the US?
  • Which P aims its propaganda and platform primarily at disenfranchised locals who feel foreigners are 'stealing their jobs and wealth' often juxtaposing itself against 'the establishment'?
  • Which P, when it lost an election, pushed so hard on claims of fraud that it had its leader (now ex-leader) openly support violent protest and Coups only to later deny he did anything of the sort? Which Party has had leaders flipflop and lie about their agenda, especially when it comes to foreign policy?
  • Which P claims to loathe Communism and the left-wing  the most while simultaneously appealing to the poor in the way that Socialists would (again juxtaposing itself against the 'establishment' or 'elite')?
  • Which P has been and remains consistently more hostile to foreign nations as well as garnering significantly more hostility towards the US from foreign nations?
To me, all these answers are blatant and would be easy to answer both for someone very well-educated in politics of the US as well as someone only moderately educated. Even somone minimalistically aware and educated about US politics should overall answer all these questions correctly.

Here are my answers .

  • R
  • R
  • R
  • R
  • R
I will now proceed to prove all these answers correct as well as justify why they have the relation to the NP that I claim them to have.

NP was rooted in being against immigration, both in platform and actions. Everything about its thesis and propaganda revolved around alienating any non-natives to Germany and demonising them. Where the NP was able to conquer, it encouraged just as xenophobic propaganda and policies in that nation, such as Poland and Czechoslovakia.

The president who announced this policy was not Donald Trump but Herbert Hoover, in 1930, after the start of the Great Depression. Hitler would come to power less than three years later. Raymond Geist, the U.S. consul in Berlin charged with applying immigration policy in Germany during much of the 1930s, saw firsthand the destruction the policy caused. The Nazis prohibited most German Jews from taking substantial assets out of the country, which meant they would be potential public charges unless they had close relatives in the U.S. with ample resources. As a result, American consuls rejected the applications of tens of thousands of people who could have made fine American citizens, thus trapping them in the escalating Nazi persecution.

In 1933, in the first term of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, his Administration considered changing the public charge clause to allow for the entry of more refugees from Germany. (At the time the United States did not distinguish between immigrants and refugees, nor was there any such thing as political asylum.) But immigration was a sensitive issue with the public and Congress—and Jewish immigration particularly so: some of Roosevelt’s critics called the New Deal the “Jew Deal.” There were State Department officials who thought American Jewish protests against Nazi persecution were exaggerated and artificial, part of a Jewish scheme to ease American barriers to increased immigration.

Note that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Dem, not an R. 



Whilst many Jews successfully migrated out of Germany, by October 1941 it was forbidden for Jews to leave the country, whereas before it was officially encouraged. Jews who had not left before this date were largely captured and forced to work in labour camps or were murdered in concentration camps, especially in Poland, which was the largest site of extermination during the war. Two of the largest concentration camps, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka, were based in Poland, a country with a population of over 3 million Jews in 1939. By the end of the Second World War no more than 400,000 Polish Jews are believed to have survived. 

During the Nazi era, roughly 300,000 additional Jewish refugees could have gained entry to the U.S. without exceeding the nation’s existing quotas.
The primary mechanism that kept them out: the immigration law’s “likely to become a public charge” clause. Consular officials with the authority to issue visas denied them to everyone they deemed incapable of supporting themselves in the U.S.

It is not possible to say what happened to these refugees. Some immigrated to other countries that remained outside Germany’s grip, such as Great Britain. But many — perhaps most — were forced into hiding, imprisoned in concentration camps and ghettos, and deported to extermination centers.

The Trump administration is now resurrecting “the public charge” clause as a way to limit legal immigration without changing immigration law. On Aug. 12, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced new regulations that will deny admission to those unable to prove under tough new standards that they won’t claim government benefits.
As someone who has studied European Jews’ attempts to escape Nazi persecution and immigrate to the U.S., the administration’s evocation of the public charge clause is chilling.

This is enough proof of that, I don't even fathom how Pro can even begin to counter this, when it comes to immigration and foreigners.

The real issue is that this isn't a singular thing. If one sees the bigger picture, it becomes quite apparent that the NP shaped its entire approach to other nations, cultures and immigrants around the same core idea; who we are is superior, not equal nor inferior, to all others. This deeply disturbing hostility and preying upon envy and internal conflicts that some locals had towards foreignors is something the NP is known to be the epitome of, as is Fascism in general.

So, which Party not just was but is doing this more, consistently and enthusiastically? One need only look at the 2020 election and platforms, let alone 2016, to see the blatant truth. Trump didn't just hate foreign powers, he outright disregarded them altogether, sanctioning the illegal assassination of an Iranian General on Iraqi soil, taking up the approach and respect Bush Jr. had for those 2 nations and their sovereignty.

In his diaries, Joseph Goebbels had repeated entries where he wrote “The main thing is, they’re talking about us.”  “They” referred to media and society generally, but also to political and business leaders and, sometimes specifically, to leaders in less extreme nationalist parties who shared a negative view of the Weimar Republic. “Us” meant not just the Nazi Party, but also its embodiment in Adolf Hitler, a megalomaniac claiming to be the savior of a German nation threatened by Jews, Bolsheviks and globalism. It was Goebbels’s task to force “them” — those whose acceptance was necessary to achieve power — to talk about “us” as partners.

The new histories remind us how much Hitler and the Nazi Party, even with its seemingly indomitable force, needed such acceptance. “They” considered Hitler to be a clown and his followers to be ruffians. Mein Kampf was seen as the rambling of the leader of a pitiful “beer hall putsch.” Even as the Nazi Party seized on conditions of economic crisis and increased its vote from 3 percent in the 1928 parliamentary elections to 37 percent in July 1932, no other party would join a parliamentary coalition with Hitler as Chancellor. He could gain power only through a presidentially appointed cabinet. After initially vowing never to name the “lowly private” chancellor, President Paul von Hindenburg acceded when a significant part of the German nationalist and military establishment agreed to Hitler’s demand for the leading government post in order to form an anti-Weimar cabinet and mistakenly believing they could control Hitler.

Trump, too, was broadly seen as a political clown, unfit to wield power (still a common view that disregards his will to use it). He also built a base of political support on a racist conspiracy theory (“birtherism”). He increased his support using additional racist themes, promoting an anti-immigrant and anti-globalist nationalist platform under the banner of Make America Great Again. His politics were dismissed as fringe by the leading political competitors for the Republican Party nomination.

Trump required first tolerance and then acceptance of an extremist platform, attracting fanatical support by the political party whose presidential nomination he sought. Using broadcast and social media, staged rallies, provocative statements, and encouragement of violence, Trump practiced the Goebbels tactic of getting “them” to talk about “us.” It gained him saturation coverage of his campaign. That led “them” (media, elites, and leading figures within the Republican Party) to legitimize Trump’s “populist” brand of politics, even as he grew more extreme. One by one, fellow candidates conceded to Trump’s seemingly unstoppable momentum. No effort was made to coalesce behind a remaining candidate with less extreme views — despite others performing better in national polls against the opposing party’s likely candidate. 

As in Germany, there was nothing inevitable about the nomination of Donald Trump, nor the full consolidation of an entire political party around an egomaniacal and extremist candidate. Yet, Republican Party leaders at national, state and local levels, seeking to regain national power for the party after eight years, tolerated his extremism and alarming behavior. The candidate once considered anathema became, as some claimed, “exactly the right leader for our times.”

For the following quote, see what I have emboldedened to grasp it.

Nazi policies concentrated on building a cohesive national majority, to unite ‘ethnic’ Germans against Jews, foreigners, homosexuals, political critics and other minority groups. The  contemporary analogy would be Trump actively pitting white Christian America against minorities in the years ahead.

Political polarization has increased during the Trump presidency. This is especially visible since the killing of George Floyd in police custody and similar high-profile incidents involving police brutality against minorities. Riots and deadly confrontations between predominately white Trump supporters and more diverse “Black Lives Matter” activists have occurred and polarized US politics along ethnic lines.

Beyond this general outlook, I highlighted four key steps that were taken by the Nazis to consolidate their power. Using history as a guide, I translated them in scenarios for contemporary America. The first step is scapegoating. I wrote:

Scapegoating was a Nazi maneuver to blame minority groups for policy failures and the weak economy. Trump has blamed foreigners and minorities for taking away jobs and killing Americans, but we need to see if this rhetoric from the campaign trail continues once he takes office. 
Moreover, Nazi ideologues drew connections between their adversaries: to them, Marxists were essentially Jews, and Jews were connected to big money, so they alleged a global conspiracy against “racial” Germans — the “Jüdisch-Bolschewistische Weltverschwörung.” The equivalent today — an invented conspiracy of Trump’s domestic critics, minorities and international adversaries — would be a clear parallel and warning sign.

Trump has continued to blame foreign and domestic enemies for his policy failures. China has been blamed for the COVID-19 pandemic. Domestically, violent Anarchists, left-wing cancel culture, and the “deep state” have been blamed. Trump has never connected these dots into a Nazi-style world conspiracy, but his most ardent followers have. In the popular QAnon conspiracy theory, a child-abusing, state-run conspiracy, composed of global elites, is responsible for a wide array of social problems. Such conspiracy theories were not originally proposed by Trump, but he has embraced them, by drawing a “Q” in the air, referring to the state department as the “deep state department”, and by proposing that his reelection was stolen by a conspiracy. In summary, Trump has relied heavily on scapegoating.

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at reporters by calling them “Fake News”. He also attempted to silence critics on Twitter and sued the New York Times.

A second component of the Nazi power consolidation was media co-optation. I wrote:

Media co-optation (“Gleichschaltung”) proceeded in two steps in Nazi Germany: extending ideological command over the media where possible and shutting down those media outlets Hitler could not control. In the United States today, this type of autocratic control would be virtually impossible, though attempts at censorship are imaginable. Trump has had openly hostile relations with major newspapers such as the New York Times and The Washington Post, and threatened legal action during the campaign. The role of social media in the election points to future possible points of contention. One factor that contributed in some part to Trump’s victory was propaganda containing false but factual-sounding statements that discredited Hillary Clinton on social media.

Facebook has announced that it will do more fact-checking on trending stories. Mass-media technology has changed dramatically since the 1930s — and Trump has no legal basis to shut down critical outlets. But legal quarrels between his administration, the media and social networks would be a red flag, and a threat to the First Amendment.

Four years later, the struggle over fact-checking has prevailed. Trump has repeatedly lashed out at reporters by calling them “Fake News”. He also attempted to silence critics on Twitter and sued the New York Times. The largest and most consequential attempt at media co-optation came with proposed changes to legislation that could eliminate fact-checking from the Internet. Under U.S.C. section 230, online publishers, such as social media companies, are protected from liability for presenting, but also restricting information provided by third parties. This legislation allows Twitter and Facebook to label published information as disputed or not trustworthy. If repealed without replacement, labeling something as factually incorrect could be result in costly lawsuits. Even after having lost the election, Trump threatened to veto military funding unless Section 230 was repealed. Calling Trump’s word into question would have been financially impossible for most providers, had this attempt been successful. In this sense, Trump has attempted media-cooptation.

A third component of the Nazi reign was paramilitary organizations. I wrote:

Paramilitary organizations were also part of the Nazi effort to boost national-majority cohesion. The “Sturmabteilung” (SA) violently attacked and intimidated adversaries, most notably on “Kristallnacht” in 1938, when they carried out large-scale attacks on Jews and political opponents. Thus far, the president-elect’s reaction to post-election racial violence and harassment has been a call to “stop it!” Trump rejected an endorsement from a KKK-linked newspaper before the election, but continued praise from former KKK leader David Duke leaves many Americans concerned about the potential for a rise in SA-type activities. Even more alarming would be any indication that the U.S. government would tolerate violence or racial intimidation from white supremacist groups.

In the wake of the attacks on the Capitol on January 6, direct comparisons to Kristallnacht and Hitler’s early violent power grab, the “Beer Hall Putsch” have been drawn by US politicians. Earlier than that, Trump has refused to condemn deadly right-wing attacks: after the Charlottesville car attack, Trump commented there were “very fine people on both sides”. Instead of rejecting paramilitary organizations threatening violence, Trump simply asked the “Proud Boys” to “stand down”. The threat of paramilitary violence coming from QAnon, local militias, and anti-BLM vigilantes was part of his presidency and culminated in a deadly attack on the US capitol, directly instigated by Trump. However, there is one important difference to Nazi Germany: Trump did not organize and directly control paramilitary organizations, labor service, and youth indoctrination. The Nazis did that with the SA, the Reichsbund organizations, and the Hitler Youth.

Finally, I identified emergency laws as a cornerstone of Nazi rule:

Emergency laws came about in Germany after the 1933 arson attack on the Reichstag (Germany’s parliament). Hitler used the threat of terrorism and foreign aggression to justify sweeping autocratic policies, including the 1933 Enabling Act (which let the government issue laws without the Reichstag). Similarly, the Reichstag Fire Decree in 1933 gave Hitler the power to suspend most Germans’ political and individual rights, effectively outlawing opposition parties. Changing the U.S. Constitution to abolish elections and remove freedom of speech is hardly imaginable. The United States has an uninterrupted democratic history, while Hitler was able to tap into nostalgia for the times under the last German emperor. But the United States has had similar measures in place since Sept. 11, 2001, which have boosted government surveillance while limiting checks and balances on domestic policing and the use of military force.

Trump has attempted to directly control politics while circumventing checks and balances on multiple occasions. However, the US has not seen an abolition of checks and balances comparable to the Enabling Act. Instead, “ruling by decree” was a constant element of his presidency, starting with banning Muslims from entering the country and mobilizing the National Guard during BLM protests. Additionally, he prompted to designate ANTIFA a terrorist organization, which in turn would have lowered legal barriers for employment of force.
With regard to international conflict, the picture is mixed. Trump has made good on his promise to not start a war, but he has come very close at times. Tensions with North Korea increased early on in his presidency, culminating in threats of “fire and fury” and dismissing Steve Bannon for his  observation that there is no military option for the Korean peninsula. The assassination of high-ranking Iranian General Qasem Soleimani brought the countries to the brink of war, and retaliatory strikes were conducted against a US base in Iraq.

Round 3
Pro
I am going to have to forfeit this round. I am sick as a dog. Flu.
Con
I would like to just say that around 80-90% of Pro's Round 1 is pure conspiracy theories and/or lies. I don't even understand how he thinks just saying they control mainstream media is even a thing to say regarding this debate.

Hitler's control of media was far beyond what either party goes for. While neither party silences the opposition, it is only the Republicans who have news sources dedicated to demonising immigrants and basically anything or anyone that isn't your typical white, hetero-normative, Christian American. They've slowly begun to lessen on the racist agenda but you get the idea.
Round 4
Pro
Con goes straight to labelling the Republicans as racist and anti-immigrant as the reason why they closely align with the Nazi Part. Since I do not have the time to go through and rebut everything he said I will prove that is is a bad argument.
The Republican Party is not for illegal immigration, not against legal immigration. The Republican Party is no different than any other country on the face of the earth. I grew up in Mexico and even they are against illegal immigration. Canada is against illegal immigration. Ethiopia is against illegal immigration. The Democrats only use illegal immigration to give themselves more power. Indeed the Nazis had reverse immigration, instead of migrating, they just swallowed up people into their nation. 

I find it interesting that Con tries to white wash Franklin D. Roosevelt who came to power in March 1933 just two months after Hitler became Chancellor, not enough time to implement all the anti-Jewish laws. Indeed, the Jews didn't loose their citizenship until 1935. Between 1933 and 1941 Jews were not permitted into the US by the Roosevelt administration even though it was known that the German Jews were loosing their rights. Instead, boatloads of Jews were turned back. Since the 1920s Roosevelt was showing his anti-Semitism and was strongly ant-immigrant. This can be proven in Rafael Medoff's book The Jews Should Keep Quite. Indeed, Roosevelt praised Hitler on numerous occasions. Indeed, the Nazi's praised The New Deal and likened it to the National Socialists dreams for government (https://mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr). I find it interesting that the Times doesn't provide sources for their article...

Indeed, to compare the the plight of the Jews to illegal immigrants or immigrants in general of today is despicable . The Jews were being persecuted by a government for their race. Most immigrants attempting to come to the US do so for the benefits that America offers and to be a burden to the country, instead of a help. The Republicans have been really lenient toward those seeking asylum from persecution. Which is why Cubans, Chinese, Vietnamese and North Koreans are easily granted access into America because they are suffering true persecution.

I wish I could have done this better. I ran out of time.
Con
In this final Round,Pro delivers brand new points as well as lies. For instance, he lies that theGimes doesn't source their articles. Every word un Red (hyperlinked) in the article (which is longer than what I quoted) links either to another Time article or to a referenced link. The article was written by a professional author specialised in Nazi era, not a atandard journalist. Pro would know this if he read the article through to the end and saw what was said below it.

I am not going to respond tk brand new rebuttals because Pro has no chance to defend them. Final Rounds are solely for summary and this debate is summarised easily as Pro lying and delivering a series of conspiracy theories. He didn't even reply to my Round One points, just cherrypicked.