This is the first bit of genuine wisdom I have seen from Chat responding to the Nazi question:
‘ Comparing Trump to Hitler or Stalin risks trivializing the unique horrors of those regimes’
I don’t suppose that has ever occurred to those pushing this narrative. But think about what Hitler did, the real horror in the extermination camps and ask yourself whether that suffering should be used to make a political point.
Gosh Anger….you do love this tit for tat ….let’s examine your first point:
Senior player
3112 posts
Dec 22, 2024, 12:01Oh, I didn't say illegals could vote, did I?
You literally just did.
I said the Dems were letting in illegals and they would then vote Dem.
At some point they do become citizens. And when they do, you better believe they'll vote for the guys that let them in.
= Dems subverting democracy by allowing illegals into the USA.
Plum clearly qualifies his point that illegals would vote Dem by saying at some point they would become citizens and would then vote for their benefactors. Any kid in primary school could figure that out in a comprehension test.
Very dishonest…disappointing.
This is the first bit of genuine wisdom I have seen from Chat responding to the Nazi question:
‘ Comparing Trump to Hitler or Stalin risks trivializing the unique horrors of those regimes’
Hang on, who's comparing Trump to Stalin. That's muddying the water.
I don’t suppose that has ever occurred to those pushing this narrative. But think about what Hitler did, the real horror in the extermination camps and ask yourself whether that suffering should be used to make a political point.
Because the holocaust is the sole and one thing Hitler did right? Of course your deliberately missing the point. The comparison being made is in the playbook used to gain power and the groundwork being layed as well as Trump's apparent authoritarian leanings. Hitler didn't gain power and on day one go straight to the holocaust, he spent years exploiting pre existing anti-semitism both before and after he gained power and gradually increased anti-semitic feelings among the German population. Now I'm not saying Trump will go anywhere near committing genocide but I can potentially see a situation where mass deportations start of illegal immigrants were we see families broken up, human rights being trampled on and legal citizens wrongly being deported but the Trump supporting half of America will be A-okay with it, likewise we could see political motivated prosecutions of Trump political opponents and the Trump side will say, its fine sure the other side was doing it. Something that would not be the case without Trump laying the groundwork for it.
But as for making a political point out of the holocaust, I guess the term "never again" mean's nothing too you.
Plum clearly qualifies his point that illegals would vote Dem by saying at some point they would become citizens and would then vote for their benefactors. Any kid in primary school could figure that out in a comprehension test.
Excep t he made this post first.
letting illegal immigrants in knowing that they'll then vote for them...is literally poisoning democracy.
He said nothing about them becoming citizens. At which point they are no longer illegal immigrants.
Very dishonest…disappointing.
Indeed you are...you know I was not referring to his later clarification in that post.
Rubbish….you put up the quote supporting your rebuttal and it was clearly misinterpreted. You then try to save yourself by producing another quote:
letting illegal immigrants in knowing that they'll then vote for them...is literally poisoning democracy.
But that quote also doesn’t support your point. He says nothing about illegals voting dishonestly….nothing about fraud. Instead his comment about ‘poisoning democracy’ suggests it will all take part within democratic boundaries. Your claim that he meant they would vote illegally is just a convenient assumption, rebutted by his later comment.
Let’s keep the debate honest shall we?
Stav
The whole BS storu is reigning supreme agains/
Because the holocaust is the sole and one thing Hitler did right? Of course your deliberately missing the point. The comparison being made is in the playbook used to gain power and the groundwork being layed as well as Trump's apparent authoritarian leanings. Hitler didn't gain power and on day one go straight to the holocaust, he spent years exploiting pre existing anti-semitism both before and after he gained power
Exctly How did Hitler gaimn power in Germany. After World War 1 yj German Economy collapsed totally and tok yers to recover. By 1925 the German People was sick and tired of siffering an delected Hindenberg as President . There were tpo main Reason for chaos all over Germany. On te one side there ere te CommunictParty who occcupid some cities and effectively was involved in supprting a communist dictaorship in General and on the other side the wealthy and middle class after Himdenberg pledged to re-instate the monarchy in an effort to get stabiliy in Germany. However, after slight recovey in he German economy but that wa interupted in 1929 depression. Rhat dicided Gemany into two working clas factions - - namely the Communists on the leff amd the Naz's on the right/
In 1932 Gemny wa hopelessly divided vetwen the Communist and Nazi's Barin g in mind Hindenberg ffered the German Cown Price the thrown of Germany - but he refused the thwon and said his father should return to rule as monarch, That put Hindeberg in a difficult position and bearing the distrusts od espcially the aristoctd lost scires of family members killed by the Communists in Russia = prompted Hindeberg to approach the Nazi's support nd appointed Hitler as Chancellor, That dvelop into a clse patneship between thethe walthy in Germany and the Nazi's who believed hat te caould conmtro; Hitler - which turned out o be a disaster.
The mai lelment is that people want sabi;iy in their lives The only way Hiler got appointed what that the people believed he wpi;d [rpvod stability, By 1936 Germany was the richest country in Europe and the lifestyle of people improved apidly,
Now back to e Present. In teh US A rhe wealthy was initially supporting the Democatic Prty and funded the Party. That did not ork out in 2016 when te working class left the DP nd after ears of decline in theur life they voted for Trump. Tump in many ways favored the working class and heir conditions in life improved, That situation lasted until the Covid pademic and in 2020 Bden got into power, He had his Green and Health policies being compiled by Bill Gstes and his Open Border and Law and Order policy compiled by George Soros, Under Biden the Government in multiple of the woke policies caused virtually ciollapse in Federal Administraion.
But lets look at what hapened undr Buden - he closely followed the Hitler example by weaponizing the FBI and Justice Department to deal woth opposition to him and the legacy media who never once criticized the incompetent Biden Administration and ruined their lives, Biden tried to get re-elected based on fictional crime cases laid against Trump - another Nazi type of action. It did not work out for Biden ,
Biden's conduct about ultra-left policies - inclusive of family destruciion and sex polcies and the failing economic backgroud caused his demise, He lost because he promted division in the country his policies oppoased by he majoriy of the USA Voters, The Republicans contniued to get support fro, the working class made easier because of the failures of he Biden Administration in mot fields.
Any candidate supporting the working class would have won the eelction - the key question asked was "are you ifnancially better of now than you were in 2019? The voters answered that question by voting for Trump. In the end it lead to Bezos and Zuckerberg abdoning their support for Biden and the D P ended up with Harris as candidate.
How you got to comparing the way Tump got into power by using Hitler's methods is seriosuly laughable - the way Biden acted was much more in line with Hitler's actions. So y our ideas are totally flawed .
Rubbish….you put up the quote supporting your rebuttal and it was clearly misinterpreted. You then try to save yourself by producing another quote
"It evokes Hitler in your head because you don't understand that Democracy is the "blood" of the country and one party, namely the guys you support, letting illegal immigrants in knowing that they'll then vote for them...is literally poisoning democracy."
Which part of Plum's quote mention illegal immigrants turning into citizens before voting democrat.
Let’s keep the debate honest shall we?
By all means.
Stav, do you honestly think that I believe non citizens can vote in US elections?
Meaning that China, Russia, or anybody else, could pay for some
holiday makers to visit the US...and completely screw up their
elections. Laughable.
Well now that you have clarified your position then no. And yes its laughable but its a argument that's being pushed by both Trump and Musk so laugh at them.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-noncitizen-voter-fraud-fact-check/
Stalin is relevant here because the OP article was published by MSNBC.
The same outlet that spliced Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini into images of
Trump's NY rally. Despite people of all races and religions being
present.
Did they really splice in images of Stalin when talking about the rally, sounds kinda sus?.
The article writer is complaining about how unsafe he feels, and that money has had to be spent on his protection. Despite taking part in extremely hateful rhetoric that almost lead to an assassination. I'm calling out the hypocrisy.
Just make sure to call it out on all sides and maybe note how much more of it comes from the right wing.
...because Trump is actually the one that had bullets wizzing by his head.
The rhetoric that the guys you appear to support spout, and which you
seem to spout yourself, very nearly resulted in absolute global
chaos...which is exactly what would have occurred had Trump not turned
his head at the exact right moment.
Global chaos how? He wasn't even President at the time.
But let's be precise since you seem to be stuck on the "poisoning of the US blood".
When Hitler used a similar phrase he was directly referring to
genetics and race. Hence his use of the word blood. He was specifically
advocating for maintaining the purity of the Aryan bloodline. That was
the direct and provable context.
Okay yeah that's fine.
As I understand it, the US is around 58% white.
Okay I'll take your word on that.
Meaning that 42% are...umm "unclean", according to your summation of Trump's thinking.
What the actual f**k?.
But they hold passports and Trump has no problem with them.
I think he's a problem with anyone who doesn't vote for him whites included. That doesn't mean I think he's going to round up and deport every single one of them.
He's also
said, on many occasions, that you are welcome to come from anywhere in
the world and make life in the USA if you do so LEGALLY.
He also called Hati and African countries shitholes and wanted more Norwegian immigrants.
So then Trump is not referring to bloodlines or genetics, is he? If you
belive that he is then kindly elaborate on this contradiction.
Its simple, if Trump wanted to make the point that you claim he was making without being mistaken for speaking like a Nazi he could of simply not used the term poisoning the blood of the country. He could of said something like "the democrats are allowing illegal immigrants into the country so they will vote democrat". Now that would of been a lie but at least it wouldn't have been a white supremacist dog whistle at the same time
I'm just trying to figure out what kind of Nazi he is. Because the Nazis didn't care if a Jew was German, Polish or French...they wanted them all exterminated.
Try to figure out what the other side is actually saying first.
But I'll take a guess and say that Trump is probably looking at closing
the borders so that no new "others" can enter. And then, once he has
ring-fenced the country, he'll call in the military and start to work on
the 42% problem, right?
Either this is a very interesting new brand of Nazi, or you swallowed all the Kool Aid.
Man alive, these strawman arguments are so utterly ridiculous. Are you snorting something when you come up with them.
What I do notice from many of these conversations is that they tend to be very much about interpretation of words.
A very long long long list of Trump own words.
But what about actions? How was the US doing when Trump actually was president? We have 4 years of evidence. Show me the Nazi in those 4 years.
A political leader can evolve over time and take ever more extreme positions.
Were there death camps?
No one claimed there was.
Was there an increase in institutional discrimination against non whites? Where were the Nazis.
https://www.newsweek.com/hate-crimes-under-trump-surged-nearly-20-percent-says-fbi-report-1547870
So you have no evidence other than intentionally poor interpretations.
We just have a better understanding of history than you do.
Dishonest, illogical, massive TDS.
The indoctrination is strong with this one.
You don't even realize your programming just has you constantly strawmaning.
There is nothing wrong about deporting illegal immigrants, if its done in legal manner that respects human rights.
Obama deported 1,5million illegals.
He deported 2.9 million actually. Nearly double Trumps record.
...what groundwork was he laying?
Well leaving aside Obama that fact that Obama's deportations did not include dehumanizing rhetoric, the number of people that Trump has implied he could deport is far higher, at least over 10 millions but Trump himself has even suggested numbers of between 15-20 million.
Let’s keep the debate honest shall we?
By all means
Do it then, what you tried here today was misleading if not outright dishonest.
Do it then, what you tried here today was misleading if not outright dishonest.
Nope, your just confused.
I see you're basically giving up.
Funny. Trump is using "blood" like Hitler did, but he's also not using
it like Hitler did...but also he is and at the same time definitely is
not. Perhaps, make up your mind.
Okay I'm try to simplify. When people compare Trump to Hitler, when they compare him to a Nazi or a fascist, or when the talk about his authoritarian bent, we are not arguing that he's 100% identical clone of Hitler or that he 100% shares the same view as Nazi's or fascists or that he intends to enact ever single policy they ever had. What we are saying is we have seen some of Trump's playbook before being used by Nazi's and fascists to gain and maintain power that he appears to have started down a similar path but we don't know how far down the path he will go. Do I personally think he's going to enact the holocaust against illegal immigrants in the US, no I don't but I'd still have great reservations if Trump enacts a plan to deport anywhere between 10-20 million people. How would he go about doing it, how many families would be broken up, would innocent people get swept up the drag net and will his rhetoric cause violence and hate crimes against immigrants to increase. But its not just immigration's I have concerns about, its the damage he could to American democracy in the long run if he gets all his little toady yes men appointed.
What do you mean "What the actual F?"?
As in how the f**k did you think that was my summation of Trump's thinking.
Let's get this straight, are you or are you not saying that Trump thinks non-whites are unclean and will poison the "blood" of America? That what you were getting at, wasn't it? Because that's what a Nazi would say, isn't it?
I'm saying Trump is willing to demonize and dehumanize illegal immigrants in a similar manner to how Hitler demonized and dehumanized the Jews. Also while the Nazi's were without doubt racist to black people, they did not necessarily deem all non white's as inferior and white people weren't viewed as one big master race. They had their own hierarchy of racial purity. Several white races where considered inferior by the Nazi's.
I think you should perhaps just admit that you really want to believe that Trump was using the term in some Nazi type way but you don't really know how to justify this particular stance of yours.
As I already said Trump could of made the argument your claiming he was trying to make by not using a term which does have strong connotations with Nazism. He didn't because he was deliberately dog whistling.
Because he was obviously not talking about genetics and was speaking
metaphorically about democracy, security, and the American way of life.
Again with the pre-programmed response. Everything can be excused as a metaphor or joke.
Something that would obviously be poisoned by mass illegal immigration.
Evidence?
Which might be a valid argument if perhaps more than 1% of his voters had ever read My Struggle.
So would Trump risk saying something like that, meaning it as you
apparently believe he did, when the pay-off would be practically
non-existent and the risk ridiculously high? Of course not.
Because its a dog attracts all sorts of groups and people within those groups be they Neo-Nazi's Neo-Confederates, white Supremacists and just good old bog standard vanilla racists. Mein Kampf isn't required reading to be one of them. Bit of a co-incidence that white supremacist groups keep endorsing Trump as well.
Have you been to Africa? I've been to Egypt, Morocco, Mozambique,
Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zim, Malawi, Lesotho...they are shitholes of
the highest order.
Yes I've been to Morocco and Tunisia. And I argue Morocco isn't actually that bad crime wise.
Trump is 100% correct in his assessment. Does this make him a Nazi?
Oh you can absolutely criticize countries for various faults and failings. But calling a place a shit hole is inappropriate language for any world leader to use. That doesn't make him a Nazi but by saying that he's casting aspirations on the people from those countries and just another indication why Trump is unsuitable to be the leader of country, let alone the leader of the most powerful country.
After all this word salad of yours, and you've failed to make an adequate case for justifying the comparison between Trump and Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.
And all I have got from you is either strawmaning or a lack of understanding of what the other side is actually saying. And Stalin...who shoehorned him into this conversation. I certainly didn't.
And yes, MSNBC did make those comparisons. Google is your friend.
Oh I'm aware of them comparing that rally he did in Madison Square Garden to that rally held by fascists there before WW2. I'm just really curious how Stalin would have made it into that comparison considering you know he wasn't an actual Nazi or fascist. Did they genuinely splice in pictures of Stalin?
Bit of a co-incidence that white supremacist groups keep endorsing Trump as well.
Kinda puts things into perspective dontchas think? hahahahaha
Stav, again...you are intentionally assuming something without any
evidence. Show me the evidence that Trump was using this phrase in any
way as a dog whistle to Neo Nazis or white nationalists...where is the
evidence?
I'm am assuming it based on Trumps past record where he has made numerous racist comments. From the very fine people comment when talking about the Charlottesville protesters to his stand back and stand by comment when asked about the proud boys to his association with people like Steve Bannon, Roy Moore, Nick Fuentes.
“The Big Lie”: • Nancy Pelosi: In January 2021, Speaker Pelosi
referred to false claims about the 2020 election as “the big lie,”
condemning misinformation regarding election integrity. So I could
argue similarly to you and say that Nancy is using "Big Liars" as a dog
whistle.
Enemies of the People”: • Bernie Sanders: In a 2017 tweet, Senator
Sanders criticized corporate media, stating, “The media is not the enemy
of the people,” indirectly referencing the phrase while defending press
freedom. And of course Bernie is pointing out that the media are not
the enemy of the people and indirectly saying that there are enemies of
the people out there and it's not his party or the media...so it's the
"others".
Do I have any evidence for making speculations like this?
No, I don't.
Of
course you don't, as you have made up another ridiculous strawman where
you some how construe calling out Nazi/fascist like rhetoric as being
nazi/fascist dog whistling.
There is also a world of difference between a one off quote and an established pattern.
With Trump there is far too many of these comments for it to be coincidence.
But I don't suffer from any sort of derangement syndrome so I tend
not to attempt to use tenuous links to attempt to demonise and spread
hate.
The programming kicking in again, must push Trump derangement syndrome defense.
Hitler also praised the way that Britain would draw
from all of its classes when gathering for war. That is something I also
respect. Does it make me a Nazi?
OMG stop with the ridiculousness arguments. No one would give a shit if Trump's only similarity to Hitler is that they where both tea-teetotalers who where against fox hunting. Its their racism and authoritarian leanings that are the issue.
What a stupid game to play.
Indeed.
And just because you call an argument a straw man, doesn't mean that it
is. All it means is that that you aren't able to counter it so you chuck
a label on it, let out a sigh of relief and move on.
That
is literally all your doing at this point. Constantly misrepresenting
the position the other side is making. Where pray tell did anyone make
the claim that if you "harsh on crime" you're a Nazi or if you don't
accept mass illegal immigration you're a Nazi, or if you don't support
LGBT you're a Nazi, because pretty much no one is making those arguments.
Remember, you are the one making the claim that Trump's use of "blood" is a fascist dog whistle. Therefore the onus of evidence rests with you.
Where is it?
...or just admit that you have no evidence other than your poorly put together and intentional misrepresentation.
Do it then, what you tried here today was misleading if not outright dishonest.
Nope, you’re just confused.
Rubbish you made two attempts to validate your claim that Plum said Illegals would be voting. Both were easily disproven. Make a valid argument, or concede or at worst, just stop lying.
"But when you have a large following and you are a public figure or are a large media outlet, it's not the same. If you have no evidence, and based purely on an assumption, you equate someone with literally the most evil people in history, who killed millions, and you spread that kind of misinformative hate...then you really should not complain about dangerous hate coming back your way."
And therein lies the truth ....... no assumptions needed at all .
That is BS propaganda without any proof whatsoever, What they are talking about is BS and part of the DP agenda, The DP fucked up th e US Constiotution all t h time and they pretend otherwise, The Supreme Court ruled many things Biden did was Unconstitutional nd that show that Biden acted illeglly in many spheres of govtnment. .
Here is one MSNBC segment where the comparison is made, in great detail.
On my phone so the link is for YouTube mobile.
https://youtu.be/XmmxaCU2-Lc?si=VPoNSdg7VuKE3a28
Search this phrase on YouTube if the link doesn't work for you...
"Trump speaks like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini says Pulitzer prize-winning historian"
Okay I'll start off and say that linking Trump's McDonald's job election campaign stunt with Mussolini is complete bullshit on MSNBC's part. All that was standard political campaigning during an election campaign and actually quite good campaigning by Trump. By that logic anyone with a job is fascist.
But I would also argue an historian is a good a person to ask to make a comparison between Trump and those various historical leaders. Now she did bring up Stalin, but as I suspected this isn't MSNBC splicing in footage of Stalin in a comparison to Trump's Madison Square Garden rally, with the interview occurring days before Trump's rally.
Trump shares a similarity to Stalin in his authoritarian leanings and there is some similarities to the terminology used by Stalin and Trump but there is greater similarities due to the frequent racists undertones of Trumps speeches.
Outrage…..hahaha…I just enjoyed seeing somebody so sanctimonious squirm. End of the day you were defending the indefensible unsuccessfully.
Outrage…..hahaha…I just enjoyed seeing somebody so sanctimonious squirm. End of the day you were defending the indefensible unsuccessfully.
This is hilarious. You obviously mistook the the part where I said "you literally just did" and then quoted another post he made underneath which you thought I was using to support the line "you literally just did", when what I was actually doing was just my normal method of breaking up peoples posts to respond to the individual points underneath the quotes, you know the same method of posting I have been using for years.
Are you really that dense you can't figure that our or you have but your just embarrassed you made a mistake and you think some sort of ruckersforum street cred is on the line here so you feel compelled to double, then triple then quadrupple down on it. You're Trump like with the ego, this incessant childlike need to have to be seen to win every single argument not matter how ridiculously trivial.
Oh now I’m like Trump and Trump is like Hitler…..I guess that makes me like Hitler. Childish drivel by a man who can’t give one cogent reason why it’s okay to assume Plum meant illegals would be illegally voting….except by assuming that’s what he meant, when in a subsequent post he explained that wasn’t what he meant.
Civilized debate requires a bit of integrity and a willingness to see the other person’s point of view, clearly not strengths of your’s.
But keep on digging.
Stav
Start dealing wih proven facts and stop being illogocal amnd prejusice cause you to produce sub-standard discussions on the Board. I condemn t e Biden Regime of weponizing the Justice D epartment and FBI against potential opponents like they did in numerous ccassions in the past.
As far a Trump is concerned I would criticiz him as well if he did what Biden did already, Bit toa ssume from mdia repors and self-opinionated prejudice I ppose ou onsite based on facual proof that you prtend sis not true - which in Court cases was proved to be trrue, you ignore facts and acccept media fiction.
If rump did what Biden did I would criticize him based on facts. At present the emdia atacks on him all accuse himof being a fascist without any proof of fascist axctins by Trmp.
There are two ings he emdia hated and the Democrats in general is that -
* the media is facing claims of libel in their reporting amouning to billions of dollars for claims about Trump and the new Government he appointed and is bound to lose cases in court; and
* and the new FBI and Justice Department start investiging the criminal conduct by both politcians and bureaucrats and they are fighting to the full to stop investigatios - with Biden himself trying to sabotage such invesigaions by his pardons.
That is why the media and the Democrats fear what is going to them in futuire nd their present defense is hysteria.
,
Oh now I’m like Trump and Trump is like Hitler…..I guess that makes me like Hitler.
Now who's being dishonest and making assumptions. But yeah next I'll be claiming vegetarians are like Hitler.
Childish drivel by a man who can’t give one cogent reason why it’s okay to assume Plum meant illegals would be illegally voting….except by assuming that’s what he meant,
Because the wording of his original post didn't specific that he meant illegal immigrants would vote democrat only after they gained citizenship. Asides from which, if they become citizens they are no longer illegal immigrants hence implying illegal immigrants can vote is just wrong and as I said its not like assuming that was his position is a stretch considering its a position pushed heavily by major figures on the right wing.
when in a subsequent post he explained that wasn’t what he meant.
Which I acknowledged
Civilized debate requires a bit of integrity and a willingness to see the other person’s point of view, clearly not strengths of your’s.
Civilized debate?, well maybe you should try actually debating someone, instead of constantly trying to derail threads with grammar checks, transparent attempts at trolling (lol at trying to throw in Ireland's tax system into threads that have absolute zero to do with the topic) or hyper focus on some minute thing in a post that all the other posters have long since moved on from. Would you like to revisit my point on the fact that there is a spectrum
of reception of rhetoric. Which goes all the way from not believing it
to believing it 100%.
I've already acknowledged this in a manner of speaking when I said I don't believe Trump is going do a holocaust on illegal immigrants. I've already said he's not necessarily a 100% clone of Hitler or that he he shares every single view that the Nazi's or fascists shared.
And if MSM is spouting rhetoric that Trump is a Nazi, and killing Nazis
is a good thing, then there is that section of the population that will
try to assassinate him and or carry out violent acts towards his
supporters.
Hold on there is a difference between saying
Trump is a Nazi and Trump is Nazi like or using Nazi like methods. What
some in the MSM are saying is several similarities between some of the
methods used by Trump and Hitler and have reservations about where this
will lead too.
Also the mainstream media isn't advocating a
position that killing Nazi's is a good thing. Yes fighting the Nazi's in
WW2 was a good thing but they are not advocating anyone go out and kill
Neo-Nazi's or Trump.
Ah interesting you seem to acknowledge Stochastic terrorism is a thing. It does stand to reason that if people consider Trump a Nazi, they could consider him a grave threat to the US and some might try to use violence against him or his supporters in order to stop the perceived threat.
But by acknowledging Stochastic terrorism as a thing, then we have to go back to Trump and January 6th where if Trump is spouting rhetoric that the election has been stolen, then it stands to reason that people who believed Trump would consider the US to be under grave and would take violent action to stop the threat, which they did. That's why so many people view Trump as responsible for January 6th.
So
is their a difference between the two situations. Yes I think so. I
think you make a credible comparison between
Trump-Hitler/fascism/nazism/authoritarian based on what Trump has said
and done in the past, but the media does have a responsibility not to
over egg the pudding so to speak. Can I say the media hasn't overdone it
with the comparisons, well no I can't but then its just not possible
to go through every media report on it, so yeah its quite possible the
media has overdone it but I don't think they where wrong to make the
comparison in the first place.
But
on the other hands with Trump and January 6th that was based on
complete and utter lies with absolutely no evidence what so ever to
support it. I also think below Trump, the discourse online and from the
alt media that a lot of the Trump supporters get their news is far more
virulent and aggressive and more likely to incite violence than what's
coming out of the left. When leftist media where talking about Trump being like Hitler/Nazi/Fascist they where trying to get people to stop him by voting against him in the election not to actually go out and harm him.
As I gather thus far, we have gotten you to admit that you are basing
everything you are saying on tenuous interpretative assumptions, and
also that you in fact agree that dangerous rhetoric spread at large
scale, is in fact dangerous.
I don't consider my position
based on tenuous interpretative assumptions. I think its a solid
comparison based on what we know about Hitler/Fascism and Nazism. I do
agree dangerous rhetoric spread at large scale is in fact dangerous and
I'm very curious as to what mental gymnastics your going to have to do
to get Trump off the hook for January 6th now that you have established
it as your position. But I also hold the view that accurate reporting
can also be dangerous. If a sex offender has broken out of prison and
the media report on it, then that person is attacked by vigilantes well
yeah you could argue that's because the media acted dangerously by
reporting on it, even though they where factually accurate.
Let's deal with your accusations of racism next. Again, you are the one making the claim so the onus of evidence rests with you.
List just three overtly racist things that Trump has said. Now I understand that if he says he likes white coffee because he can't stand black coffee, you'll claim this is racist. But let's try and get away from your biased interpretations here and deal with actual racism.
You appear to take it has fact that he is racist, and assume that you're on stable ground when making those accusations.
I know that for me to be that sure of something, I would be able to list clear examples.
So, the floor is yours.
Just three.
Kung Flu.
Immigrants from Hati all have aids.
Nigerians should go back to their huts.
During his 1993 testimony when commenting. on Native American casino operators, where he said they "don't look like Indians to me."
Referring to Hispanic Miss Universe as Miss Housekeeping.
Some very fine people (referencing people who included white supremacists)
His Mexican comment on the judge overseeing the Trump University case.
Telling 4 black American congresswomen (the Squad) to go back home.