HistoryBuff

-->

@Greyparrot

Opportunities give those people born fucked up a chance and also allows people that want to choose to be fucked up to choose that freely without some communist Karen telling him he can't do that.

ok. but right wing economics removes those opportunities as companies reduce or freeze wages and crush the middle class, as they have been for decades.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Conway

If your wages don't rise then wouldn't it follow that someone else has to be comfortable paying more for the prices to go up?

i'm not sure I follow. lots of companies were doing well under Obama and that carried over into trump's presidency too. but their wages for workers remained stagnant. All employers like it this way. they don't want to pay their workers more and decades of right wing economic government policy has shown that companies will not improve this without government intervention. If they would, then decades of right wing rule wouldn't have lead us here.

1% of the population in the top income bracket isn't causing the price of bread to go up substantially.

true. but there are lots of factors to the rise of the cost of living. the key point is that we need wages to rise at the same pace, and they aren't. thus crushing the middle class.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Shit wages are better than no wages, but Venezuelans can still forage for food when the communists remove their opportunities for choosing a shit wage job.

classic deflection. your options are work for slave labor wages in the current system, or have a state controlled economy.

there is alot of middle ground between those 2 positions. but republicans like to pretend the only options are to be ripped off by capitolists or ripped off by state control.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

if your options are shit wages or starving to death, you take shit wages.
No you don't you fucking go forage for food like every animal does. You don't wait for a fucking hand out, and you don't have to work for anyone.

you don't seem to understand. Working is not a handout. But people need to work or face financial ruin. If no employers are offering good wages, then you have no chance at improving your financial situation. That isn't a fault in workers, that is a fault of companies leaving their wages stagnant for decades while the costs of living for their employees rise year after year.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@bmdrocks21

yes, i have heard this argument from republicans alot. poor people are stupid, lazy and bad. Rich people are moral and awesome. we should just give all the tax breaks and government support to those rich people. it is a tired argument.

They aren't stupid, they just make stupid decisions. It is just a fact.

that seems like some really stupid hair splitting.

The lowest quintile in the US spends 40% of their income on luxury goods and 60% on necessities. That is insane.

that very much depends on how you quantify it. for example they are putting food in there as a luxury. I would imagine that a cell phone would probably be classified that way as well, but these days they are pretty much a requirement.

32% of low income people bought luxury shoes, 31.5% bought luxury clothes, 33% luxury electronics.

i can't seem to access the stats. it wants me to create an account. but again, what do they classify as a "luxury shoe"? or "luxury clothes".

I don't know, it applies to other home devices too. Microwaves and refrigerators also used to be luxury items but people can buy most of those now.

ok, but again, you aren't talking about an improvement to their finances, IE wealth trickling down. You are talking about more consumer products for them to buy despite their wages being stagnant and living costs rising.

I don't expect these devices to improve the "financial situation" of most Americans, but I'd argue it raises their quality of life being able to have these.

but this is not an example of trickle down economics working. It is not improving the finances of americans. it may be making it worse.

The vast majority of Americans have housing and food. Death by starvation is so rare, the CDC doesn't even include it in causes of death statistics. Homelessness *shocker* is most prevalent in areas that adopt your lefty policies. Washington, DC, and California have huge homelessness problems. Iowa? Nebraska? Not so much.

because in republican states they simply drive off homeless people. so they naturally move to states where they won't be harassed or even attacked (as much).

Says Mr. "EAT THE RICH" ALL RICH PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND GAINED WEALTH THROUGH THEFT.

I never said any part of that. this is just outright lies.

I LOVE THE VIRTUOUS POOR PERSON WHO DOES DRUGS AND DOESN'T WORK AND SPENDS 40% OF THEIR MONEY ON LUXURY GOODS

lol, even when trying to make fun of me you can't keep your utter contempt of poor people out of your answer.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

poor people are stupid, lazy and bad.
Just the ones that make really bad life decisions and do not invest in themselves.

ok, but this writes off like 100 million people as lazy and making bad choices. but for alot of those people there was little to no possibility of success. Just blaming them and writing them off is what republicans and corporations want because then no one has to look at those pesky underlying causes of poverty. Like the fact that wages have been stagnant for decades, but the cost of living has been steadily rising.

Then the investor loses their investment. You seem to think wrongly that people will willingly work for shit wages.

you seem to think wrongly that people have a choice. if your options are shit wages or starving to death, you take shit wages. When the economy is designed to pay workers as little as possible, a large percentage of american workers have no chance of finding a decent paying job.

Investors have to pay the bare minimum that the labor market demands. They don't have a choice.

and when all the employers pay the same shit wages, workers don't have a choice. Your options are shit wage at company A, shit wage at company B, shit wage at company C, or starving to death. Employers hold all the power when all the employers pay shit wages.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@bmdrocks21

You can't go all-in on supply-side or demand-side economics. You need to play both sides.

I agree. both are needed. But if you have unlimited investment funds and no one to sell to, your business will fail. If you have low investment funds but a market hungry to buy products, your business will succeed. Slowly, but it will succeed.

You do need high consumer buying power, yes, but at the same time, I doubt those consumers are necessarily going to be putting their money towards the most valuable things. Like if they are spending their money on basketball shoes and cognac, then giving them money isn't going to help things.

actually, it helps alot more than giving money to rich people. A working class person gets money and spends it on things. rent, food, clothes etc. That drives the economy and creates jobs.

Poor people make a lot of poor purchasing decisions. The fact that people live paycheck-to-paycheck isn't simply because they don't make enough to live off of, it is because they are often very wasteful with their money.

yes, i have heard this argument from republicans alot. poor people are stupid, lazy and bad. Rich people are moral and awesome. we should just give all the tax breaks and government support to those rich people. it is a tired argument.

Those innovations in cheaper and more advanced technology do trickle down in the fact that most people own a smartphone, even the very poor. Phones are useful for a lot of work functions.

but that isn't wealth trickling down. Poor people having phones doesn't improve their financial situation at all. In fact, it creates one more consumer product that society now says they need to own which might actually make their situation worse. building better phones is great, but that doesn't actually help the financial situation of most americans.

And left wing economics just takes wealth from producers and gives it to people that didn't earn nor deserve it, thus destroying wealth.

this doesn't make any sense. The poor person uses the money to pay for food, shelter etc. That isn't "destroying wealth". That is the backbone of the economy.

See? I can mischaracterize your economic beliefs too.

apparently not. your response simply didn't make any sense.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Every poor capable person has labor they can trade for products if there is an investor able and willing to hire them.

and if those investors pay shit wages, then the workers can't afford to buy those products. When there is no one to buy the product, the business fails.

investment capitol is important. having a population with sufficient financial stability to afford the product and drive demand for products is far more important. Trickle down economics is a lie sold by the people at the top. they want you to give them tons of money with a vague promise it will benefit someone else. But it is a lie.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Poor people don't create jobs. Investments come from the top.

investment means nothing if there is no one to use the product. If people can't afford to buy that new product, then it doesn't matter how much you invest in designing or producing it. Investment is important. Having a populace with sufficient income to afford it is the far more important aspect.

The "driven from the bottom" is observable bullshit considering all the totalitarian communist countries with millions of poor unable to create a goddamn thing for themselves. See Venezuela.

you are contradicting your own point. You say driven from the bottom is bullshit, then give examples of economies driven from the top.

Wealth is NOT a static object. It is a variable asset created and destroyed by individual men.

I agree the size of the pie is important. But the distribution of the pie is also critically important. It doesn't matter how big the pie gets if more and more of it go to a smaller and smaller group as you increase the size of it. IE as the pie gets bigger but the rich take a bigger slice of it faster than the pie grows. Thus the poor and working class are no better off. In fact, they are often worse off generation after generation.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

If you could rewrite one part of the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?

-->

@fauxlaw

No, you become perfect, first; then you do not need rules. That is what Madison said. He did not say you eliminate the rules, and the result is angelic. Now THAT is what does not make sense.

if humans were capable of being perfect, then communism would be the perfect system. However humans are not capable of being perfect. That is why communism doesn't work. And that is why you aren't making any sense.

Eliminating rules just further empowers those with wealth, power and connections as they have more and more ability to use their wealth to the detriment of others.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@bmdrocks21

In reality, they bring down that top person a lot and push the bottom person up a tiny bit, then neither of them reach the summit.

strong economies are not pushed from the top, they are driven from the bottom. IE strong consumer demand for something creates business opportunities. This gives wealthy or just talented people the opportunity to meet that need an become wealthy. So the more money you can give to the people on the bottom of the system, the stronger the economy becomes. The more money you funnel to people at the top, the weaker it becomes. Helping people at the top go higher helps a small number of people. Helping people at the bottom helps everyone.

Everyone wants everybody to be able to follow the American dream, but you certainly don't accomplish it that way.

no, you accomplish it by funneling all the wealth to a tiny slice of society while everyone else slides lower and lower. That is what right wing economics does.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

If you could rewrite one part of the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?

-->

@fauxlaw

Sure, but all of that depends on legislation controlling behavior. When has that ever been successful?

what? that is literally all legislation. Every law is to control behavior.

But "controlling" legislation is just another word for totalitarianism, isn't it?

again, all legislation is "controlling". if it wasn't, what would be the point of the legislation? it would just be a suggestion.

James Madison once said that if men were angels, we would not need government. Do you think angels become angels by control? Nope.

no, angels would always be angels. therefore they wouldn't need government. Humans aren't angels, they never will be angels. that is why they need government.

We become angels by embracing the rules of liberty and granting them to everybody else.

no, humans will never be angels. that is why we create laws to control what a person can and cannot do for the protection of other people and society as a whole.

So, why not seek to become angels rather than trying to control everybody?

because that is a literal impossibility.

You may argue that's impossible. And that arguement is accepting limitation. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. What about just trying to be angels?

you aren't even making sense. you are arguing that if just remove all the rules humans will become perfect. Thousands of years of human history disprove that. When you remove the rules, people kill and rob each other. That is why we build societies with laws.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

There is no need to lie to them.
ok

but there absolutely is a need to transition away from such incredibly destructive industries.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

I can care about the fracker and hate fracking.
Too bad Harris and Biden didn't feel the need to lie to them and make them feel good. Guess those electoral votes don't matter.

you haven't established that anyone lied. The fracking industry causes huge damage. America needs to move away from this. The government should help provide assistance and training so that people in this destructive industry can find work in a better one.

There is no need to lie to them. and there is no need to protect a destructive industry in the name of "jobs".

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

If you could rewrite one part of the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?

-->

@fauxlaw

Show me. As I told RM, the founding fathers expected us to think and research. We didn't have to be led by the nose in every single little thing over which you get a burr up your ass.

I couldn't agree more. And since american gun violence is absolutely a problem, we should think and research. And then we can start to impliment common sense gun reform to address the issue.

Get this straight. Your "gun control" is not elimination of weapons.

no, it is the control of weapons. I thought the name was pretty self explanatory.

You have state laws in every state allowing the use of weapons, and even the personal manufacture of them in many states. Get over it.

ok, then we would just need federal laws or even potentially a constitutional change to ensure the gun control laws are uniform.

You eliminate guns, you think that stops killing? I can kill with my thumb.

no, people who want to commit a crime will likely still carry them out. But if you decide to kill your coworkers, the outcome will be very different if you have a gun than if you have a thumb. Gun control isn't about stopping crime, it is about reducing the severity of crime.

PEOPLE kill people. They use any number of weapons to do it, including tools not ever made to be weapons.

absolutely true. But you can kill alot less people when you have a less deadly weapon. Therefore reasonable restrictions on deadly weapons is a logical and very beneficial policy.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

i have no idea what this lie you are referring to is. What were they lying about?
All they had to do is simply lie like Bill and Barry did and just say they care about the deplorable frackers.

you can care about people in a specific line of work and also know that this line of work is a big issue. Those 2 things are not in opposition to each other. I can care about the fracker and hate fracking.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@TheUnderdog

because the war on poverty was largely run by right wing people.
It was made by Lyndon B Johnson, who was a lefty.

and ever since then the US has lurched to the right. The democrats are right wing, the republicans are really right wing. No one wants to actually address the causes of poverty because to do that they would need to go after the rich who benefit from it.

it was never designed to fight the actual causes of poverty, so it couldn't ever succeed.
The war on poverty was designed to fight poverty.

true. but it was never designed to fight the causes of poverty. It's a bit like slapping a bandaid on a gun shot wound. it will deal with some of the visible symptoms, but it won't ever actually fix the problem. So there is no way to ever actually "win".

There should be some government protections, but we need to encourage workers to get jobs that are fine with paying very high wages as opposed to forcing businesses to pay lower wages than the alternative of hooking low income people up with better paying jobs.

i'm not really sure what you are arguing here. you want to encourage workers to get jobs that basically don't exist. then blame the government and workers when they can't find these non-existent jobs. don't get me wrong, high paying jobs definitely exist. But nowhere near enough of them. A large percentage of available jobs simply do not pay enough to keep people out of poverty. So while some workers will get high paying jobs, for about half of the populace of the US, it simply isn't possible. Corporations are very good at finding ways of suppressing wages and cutting costs. That's great for the wealthy shareholders, but extremely damaging to workers and the health of the economy as a whole.

Independence from government sounds nice on paper, but in practice this just means you have the freedom to be abused by the rich where no one has the power to help you.
It means the government doesn't pay you welfare benefits.

that is, quite simply, a horrific plan. It would mean countless deaths and cause serious damage to the american economy. Welfare keeps lots of people alive as the look for work. If you cut it then thousands die and the economy takes huge damage. Not to mention it would destroy whatever political party allowed it to happen.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Open carry

-->

@TheUnderdog

Bear arms means the right to carry arms.

did i ever say it wasn't?

Grenade launchers aren't arms

arms just means a weapon. a grenade launcher is a weapon. so yes, arms would include a grenade launcher.

and the white house isin't public property.

it is owned by the US government. IE it is owned by the public.

Every safe person should be allowed to carry an AK 47 while on the street. That's freedom.

lol, no it isn't. I could easily say "every person should be allowed to carry a nuclear weapon on the street. That's freedom". It would be just as silly.

The masses are the militia.

no. It specifically says "well regulated militia". "the masses" are, by definition, not well regulated. Therefore the 2nd amendment does not apply to anyone not in a well regulated militia.

There should be some restrictions, but open carry should not be one of them. The constitution protects open carry.

As stated, i disagree the constitution protects open carry for people not in a well regulated militia. but even if it did, there need to be reasonable limits on all rights. You can have the right to drive, but not down a bike path. You have the right to freely walk down the street, but if you are covered in blood the police are definitely going to stop you and question you. In a society, all rights need have limits to protect others. That absolutely includes the "right to bear arms".

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@TheUnderdog

The war on poverty failed in getting the poor people out of poverty.

because the war on poverty was largely run by right wing people. it was never designed to fight the actual causes of poverty, so it couldn't ever succeed.

They need jobs. The American dream is independence from the government, not government handouts.

true, but since corporations exist to make as much money as possible, by design, they pay their employees as little as they possibly can. With no government protections, this creates a permanent underclass. That is why america and the rest of the world have spent decades and even centuries adding more rights for workers and restricting the amount of abuse that employers can engage in.

Independence from government sounds nice on paper, but in practice this just means you have the freedom to be abused by the rich where no one has the power to help you.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Open carry

-->

@TheUnderdog

The 2nd amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed". Bearing arms is open carry. It therefore should be legal in all 50 states. Make America armed again.

Bear arms under what circumstances? If we took that entirely at face value, then any citizen has the right to walk into the white house with an grenade launcher. Which, for obvious reasons, we should not allow. I disagree that the 2nd amendment should allow just anyone to own a weapon since it clearly says that it is for being in a "well regulated militia", which most gun owners aren't. But even if we assume that that is what is meant, there still need to be reasonable restrictions on people's rights for the sake of public safety.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

If you could rewrite one part of the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?

-->

@fauxlaw

The National Guard is a militia, as I cited in my #23: 10 U.S.C. § 246

Do a little research. That's what history's for.

Does the national guard require members to provide all of their own equipment? Because if not, then why would members of that "militia" need the right to bear arms? If the equipment is provided by the state, then they don't need a right to own a weapon. And then the 2nd amendment doesn't even apply.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4kowE_YIVw

Kamala reminds us all what the radical left wants for Americ

they want to give every american the opportunity to chase the american dream... oh god, the horror. Don't they know that poor people are immoral and deserve to stay in poverty?

Created:

4 years ago

2

Posted in:

If you could rewrite one part of the U.S. Constitution, what would it be?

-->

@fauxlaw

No. Like I said, a militia is just one purpose of the right to bear arms. Why is that so hard to understand. The Constitution, by intent, does not spell everything out in minutia. The founding fathers expected us to think for ourselves.

the 2nd amendment is quite clear that the right to bear arms is because people needed to be in a militia in order to defend the state. Which at the time it was written was absolutely true. Since we no longer need militias to defend the state, the 2nd amendment no longer serves it's purpose.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

All it would take is to stop telling them that their fracking jobs dont matter.

no one is saying jobs don't matter. But fracking is extremely damaging. jobs are good, but jobs which are causing huge damage should not be protected just for the sake of creating jobs. we should be trying to move our economy away from practices that cause significant damage to the environment.

That it's ok to reject BLM for disrupting the western family.

this doesn't make any sense. they are attempting to get equal rights and protection for black people. That has absolutely no effect and causes no disruption to "the western family", unless that western family is routinely discriminating against black people.

For some reason, Obama on up decided to stop lying to them as Bill Clinton and priors did.

i have no idea what this lie you are referring to is. What were they lying about?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

People know full well who Trump is, they are not brainwashed. It's just that he is the only politician in DC in any party, flawed as he is, that does not despise them for being a backwards class of people.

you're kidding right? Trump has spent his whole life looking down on poor people. And black people. And women. And i'm sure lots of other groups too. He doesn't give a shit about you. His whole run for office was a marketing stunt. His main success as a business man has been in marketing himself as a successful business man (ie the apprentice and art of the deal). But that money was starting to dry up by 2016. He ran for president to give him more name recognition and rebuild his brand.

He doesn't care about his cultists. He only cares about them insofar as they worship him and it feeds his narcissism.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

An update to bring this back to the original topic, the one where Tucker claimed a grand conspiracy about documents being stolen. UPS found them. they were returned. This whole thing was an absolute non-story in an attempt to rile up gullible people.

Also, they aren't talking about what is actually in the information. Just the "conspiracy". This whole thing is a joke.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

The argument is always that Clinton spent more, but let's be honest and say that a Presidency is always going to cost a small fortune.....So which is the greater small fortune, is somewhat irrelevant

that's fair. Trump was well funded to be sure. But I just don't think he "bought" the presidency.

And my reference to sheep was really about human nature, and what the masses are capable of when someone gets them all to bleat the same tune.

agreed.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@zedvictor4

Whereas Trump is an inept and intellectually deficient bloke who bought a Presidency.

I wouldn't say he bought it. He was outspent by Clinton. He is an effective showman and con man. He was able to read the atmosphere of anger at the establishment and effectively use that to position himself as an outsider that would bring change. However, because he is a conman, he didn't actually do that after he won.

The comparison to make is between the German people of the time and the American people of today....As David Icke would say: Humans have a tendency to outsheep the sheep......Baaaa

I guess that is an interesting comparison. The german people we getting desperate. The years after WW 1 went really badly for them and they needed someone to try something extreme to fix their problems. So they handed power to fascists. The american people were getting desperate because years of Right wing (democrat) and further right wing (republican) economic policy has gutting the middle class. So they turned to a populist who promised them to try new things to fix the problems. They elected Obama for the same reason. But both failed to carry out their promises.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ILikePie5

A 17 minute video isn’t a 500 page book or research journal dude. It would take you longer to read a chapter in a 500 page book than watch a 17 minute video lol

if you want people to look at your evidence, tell them exactly where to find it. I don't understand why this seems to be complicated for you.

It’s right in the source. The claim is simple: Bobulinski claims the “big man” in the verified emails refer to Joe Biden, who met with a member of Burisma.

2 things. 1) that guy has a axe to grind against the bidens. So the things he says should not be taken as fact without evidence

2) at the time he claims that at the time the "big man" comment was made, joe was a private citizens (not VP) and therefore there would be no criminal issue even if it were referring to biden.

This entire "story" is meaningless. I don't understand why the right thinks this is some huge scandal.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@ILikePie5

Listening to the other side is something you should be in a habit of doing.

I have no problem listening to the other side. If i did, I wouldn't be here talking to you. But i'm not going to spend hours and hours of my life watching well known liars spew nonsense. If you want someone to review your "evidence", then it is incumbent upon you to tell us precisely where to find it. What you are are doing is roughly equivalent to saying that there is evidence you want us to read and it is in a book. You won't tell us what page or chapter it is in, just read the book.

We obviously are not going to do that. Make your argument, tell us exactly where to find the "evidence" you want to present. If you can't do that, then why are you here?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@SirAnonymous

lol so a conman spews lies to his cult followers and they start chanting to prove their cult status. Hilter got that kind of response too.
There isn't a lot of context provided here. Yes, you could say that you technically didn't compare them beyond spewing lies and having cult-like followers. However, Trump is often directly compared to Hitler, and comparisons with Hitler are inherently charged to begin with.

True. But i was specially just comparing their cult of personality in this comment. And both Trump and Hilter engaged in this, so it is an apt comparison.

There's almost always a better way to communicate your meaning without invoking Hitler, which serves little purpose beyond triggering people.

The name of this topic that greyparrot chose is "Trumpy the Clown cries like a little baby.". This Topic started off stupid. No matter how I communicate, it isn't likely to improve when the author starts it that way.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@ILikePie5

How is 17 minutes unduly burdensome? This is exactly the reason why the MSM influences people like you. You’re so stuck on the 1 minute sound bite you have no idea about what the entire context is.

listening to 17 minutes of Fox "news" propaganda to try to find something that isn't complete nonsense is rather burdensome (since it is all bullshit anyway). Especially since you have a proven track record of just ignoring any information which challenges your pre-determined opinion anyway. So going through that would be completely pointless.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@SirAnonymous

Yeah, there are similarities. There are also similarities between kleptomaniacs and mass murderers. Both are criminals, neither care about how their crimes affect other people or even take some pleasure in it, both have mental problems, etc. However, it would be grossly inappropriate to compare the two.

I disagree that it would be inappropriate to compare the 2. If you are attempting to profile or understand criminal behavior then understanding what aspects of personality overlap between different types of criminals and which don't is very valuable information. Again, the context of the comparison is very important. If you are comparing them in order to make a kleptomaniac appears as "guilty" or "evil" as a mass murderer then that is obviously wrong.

The kleptomaniac may share some negative qualities with the mass murderer, but the incredible differences in scale make such a comparison rather inappropriate. The same is true of Trump and Hitler.

I disagree. They are both world leaders whose decisions affect countless millions of lives. It is perfectly reasonable to compare the two. If the intention is to make trump appear as evil as Hitler, then obviously that is wrong since they aren't in the same league. If the intent is to examine how "strong men" leaders functioned in the 20th and 21st centuries, or how world leaders have used cults of personality, then it is perfectly valid to compare the two. Context is important.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@SirAnonymous

Comparisons between the two are hyperbolic, hyperpartisan, and totally irresponsible.

It depends on how you are comparing them. If you just scream "trump is like hitler!!" then yeah it definitely is. If you break it down by characteristic (ie they're both lazy, they both built a cult of personality etc) then it can be a useful exercise.

But I grant that virtually no one actually does it that way or would want to. They would pretty well all mean it in the hyperpartisan way.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Many of the worst man-made events that ever occurred were not the product of evil geniuses. Instead, they were the product of a parade of idiots and lunatics, incoherently flailing their way through events, helped along the way by overconfident people who thought they could control them.'

I agree. I don't see how it is relevant though. The only thing trump has had to deal with that is even in the same league is Covid and he has massively fucked that up. And the republican party did manage to control him. They got him to ignore the virus and try to keep the country "business as usual" even as hundreds of thousands died. And that is a solid chunk of the reason trump is likely going to lose.

The ironic part is that all trump had to do was advocate for basic safety measures and he could have come off like a hero. If he had advocated for social distancing and everyone wearing masks when this shit started, he would probably be sailing to re-election. Instead he called it a chinese hoax, kept telling people it would magically go away, refused to wear a mask in public etc.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

That's fine, because your misconceptions about both people are expected.

i haven't given any misconceptions. Hitler turned a beaten down germany into a superpower (albeit briefly). He outmaneuvered his enemies on multiple occasions.

Trump flails around trying to get people to love him, but sold out all his policy plans and just went with generic republican ones. As a result he has failed at pretty well everything. The only success of his presidency is funneling more money to the rich and cutting services and policies designed to help the poor or middle class. Which to me is a failure, but since that is what he was trying to do it is a success to him.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

I can't believe you're fan-fictioning Hitler of all people.

I am accurately describing his accomplishments. He was a flawed person. He isn't a genius of history. But he accomplished lots of things and pretending like that isn't true while pretending that trump (a giant failure of a leader) is somehow great, is really sad.

His government was constantly in chaos, with officials having no idea what he wanted them to do, and nobody was entirely clear who was actually in charge of what.

i'm sorry, are you describing hitler or trump. because this is definitely a description of trump's government.

Dietrich himself came down on the side of it being a cunning tactic to sow division and chaos—and it's undeniable that he was very effective at that. But when you look at Hitler's personal habits, it's hard to shake the feeling that it was just a natural result of putting a workshy narcissist in charge of a country.

it's a similar tactic that Borris johnson uses today. Comes across as a bit boorish and dumb, but he does it to get people to underestimate him.

Hitler was incredibly lazy. According to his aide Fritz Wiedemann, even when he was in Berlin he wouldn't get out of bed until after 11 a.m., and wouldn't do much before lunch other than read what the newspapers had to say about him, the press cuttings being dutifully delivered to him by Dietrich.

again, are yo describing hitler or Trump? He loves watching the news about himself. Never reads his briefings. etc. He is also very lazy.

He was deeply insecure about his own lack of knowledge, preferring to either ignore information that contradicted his preconceptions or to lash out at the expertise of others.

this is getting eerie. this is another perfect description of trump.

Keep in mind, i never said hitler was a genius. He was flawed, and he definitely made mistakes. But he undeniably had accomplishments. Trump flails from one train wreck to the next. But your descriptions of hitler's flaws could be repeated almost verbatim and I would have no idea you weren't talking about trump.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Lol, you obviously don't know history at all, and it shows.

no. Hitler was able to annex tons of land without firing a shot. He got a non aggression pact with the russians so that he could attack west with his rear secured. He demolished the french army (which was larger and better equipped) extremely quickly. He then came very close to conquering russia (which no one else, not even napoleon could do)

He went from being a nobody, to being arresting for treason, to controlling most of Europe in about 20 years. That kind of rise is extremely impressive. Again, he got alot of stuff wrong, and was obviously evil. But trump, by comparison is a complete idiot. Trump was handed vast resources, he didn't earn it. Once managing to con his way into leadership he alienated america's allies, made concessions to their enemies (or just bungled shit entirely) all in an attempt to personally profit.

Trump is a lousy statesman or leader. He is just a conman who has built a cult of personality and sold out his followers.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Nah bro, Hitler was an incompetent Buffoon, roundly mocked throughout the world. Paranoid, superstitious, and just all around clownish.

ignoring the morality of the shit he did, hilter was actually quite clever. He managed to outmaneuver his enemies diplomatically as well as militarily. He made critical mistakes in his strategy, but he did better than most would in his place.

Trump on the other hand is an idiot. He has alienated america's allies. made a buffoon of himself in front of the world and bungled a global crisis. Hitler was obviously more "evil" than trump, but he was a much more effective statesman and strategist.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

Hitler was an orange freak cry baby too.

no, hitler was a man who loved power and control who built a cult of personality. Trump is a con man who loves power and control and has built a cult of personality.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Why do people complain about choosing the lesser of 2 evils?

I have explained enough to you in this thread. I am not going to reply to your disinformation any longer in this thread.

all you keep repeating is that we should vote for the democrats because they are less evil than the republicans. And while that is true, their policy goals (make the rich richer, outsource jobs, etc) are still extremely bad for the lower and middle class. If we want things to actually improve, then the democrats need to change. And they have shown that they have absolutely no intention of doing this.

for example, when hilary lost to trump. Did the DNC see trump's populist message and decide that they needed to support populist policy? Hell no. They blamed bernie sanders, or just decided voters were racist and sexist. They didn't change their policy positions at all. And they never will unless they are forced to. And continuing to vote for them as the "lesser evil" will ensure they will continue to push bad policy forever.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Greyparrot

lol so a conman spews lies to his cult followers and they start chanting to prove their cult status. Hilter got that kind of response too.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in: