[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-March-17, 12:42, said:

I live in San Francisco. Heard all the arguments of the left and have rejected them.

Thanks for identifying yourself as a right wing troll.

[mikeh]

 rmnka447, on 2017-March-17, 14:11, said:

The Middlebury and UC-Berkeley protests/riots are exhibits A and B for that assertion. Change the black clothing and masks at Berkeley for brown shirts with swizstika armbands and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between now and 1930's Germany.

There speaks someone with only a 'sound-bite' level of understanding of history. As it happens, I am almost finished reading a current book about the rise of the Nazi party. What is truly striking are the passages from Mein Kampf (translated into English) in which Hitler wrote about propaganda and the importance of appealing to emotion, not reason, when seeking support. Keep it simple, don't worry about whether what one says is 'true'

In addition, once Hitler was Chancellor (as part of a coalition), he often made speeches in which he denounced the extraordinary violence being perpetrated by his supporters, but in the same speech gave clear signals, to those prepared to listen, that suggested that the violence was fine with him and justified.

The resemblance to Trump's tactics, including that part of the address to Congress where he pretended to deplore violence, is striking.

Now, do I think that Trump has ever read Mein Kampf, or any book explaining how to dupe the populace? No, of course not. He apparently limits his reading to press clippings in which he is discussed. However, Bannon has pretensions to intellect. He has already quoted Lenin in one interview, and it is not a far stretch to think that he will have read similar works. And there can be little doubt but that Bannon is largely behind Trump's racist world views.....in earlier times, Trump sounded like a somewhat disconnected liberal. He saw nothing wrong with trans people using bathrooms consistent with their chosen gender, for example. His racism, as a landlord, seems to have been inherited from his father and was probably on selfish economic grounds, in that he feared having blacks in his buildings would lead to fewer whites wanting to rent, and whites generally tend to have more money.

Bannon, otoh, has frequently cited racist trash as great writing and sees Islam as an existential threat (made all the worse by the colour of the skin of most muslims, it seems).

By the way, one major difference is that in Germany, several political parties had associated with them large organizations of well armed paramilitaries. It wasn't just the communists and Nazis, and indeed the largest paramilitary group was mostly on the sidelines until Hitler gained power, at which time he very quickly crushed the political leadership of other parties, including the nationalists with whom the Nazis were in theory in coalition, and then merged their paramilitary with his.

These groups, containing many WWI veterans as well as disgruntled younger men, numbered in the hundreds of thousands and were well organized. Fortunately Trump doesn't seem to have access to that sort of thuggery. The Berkley protestors have nothing in common with the German paramilitaries and only a profoundly ignorant person would think they did.

So I do agree with the broad theme that there are currently some truly disturbing similarities between 1930's Germany and today's USA.....just not the one the poster was suggesting. But, heck...why let facts get in the way of a nice sounding post? I mean, aren't alternative facts even better than truth amongst trump-boys?

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-March-17, 14:11, said:

The Middlebury and UC-Berkeley protests/riots are exhibits A and B for that assertion. Change the black clothing and masks at Berkeley for brown shirts with swizstika armbands and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between now and 1930's Germany.

I disagree with the protests' violence - but the protests themselves were protected rights.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-17, 16:13, said:

I disagree with the protests' violence - but the protests themselves were protected rights.

My,my! You disagree! How restrained.

[y66]

From Green beer and Rank Hypocrisy by Fintan O'Toole:

Quote

Does green beer taste better laced with hypocrisy? Does shamrock smell sweeter perfumed with historical amnesia?

We may be about to find out, for this year’s St. Patrick’s Day jamboree at the White House will be a breathtaking celebration of double standards and the willful forgetting of America’s recent past. Even by the crooked yardstick of the Trump administration, the disconnect is surreal: The president will salute the legacy of one wave of immigrants even as he deploys against other immigrants the same calumnies once heaped upon the Irish.

In the blizzard of executive orders, it was easy to miss a proclamation President Trump issued on March 1. The president declared this Irish-American Heritage Month and called on “all Americans to celebrate the achievements and contributions of Irish-Americans to our nation with appropriate ceremonies, activities and programs.” The proclamation could hardly be more upbeat in its praise of the Irish for “overcoming poverty and discrimination and inspiring Americans from all walks of life with their indomitable and entrepreneurial spirit.” Mr. Trump embraced these poor and despised foreigners as the forebears of “the more than 35 million Americans of Irish descent who contribute every day to all facets of life in the United States.”

The Irish are at least as fond as anyone else of being told how great they are, but as an Irish person, I find this more than a little disconcerting. It is like having your chastity praised by a brothel keeper, or your temperance and thrift eulogized by a drunken sailor. The whole thing would be funny if it did not raise the most uncomfortable question: Is it right to applaud the legacy of mass immigration from Ireland because the Irish are white and Christian?

The question is especially pertinent because so many of the people who have devised, defended and attempted to carry out Mr. Trump’s policy of identifying immigrant communities with criminality and terrorism are themselves Irish-Americans. The White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, announcing in January that his boss would continue the tradition of accepting a bowl of shamrock from the Irish prime minister on March 17, told reporters that the St. Patrick’s Day reception is “an issue that’s near and dear to me” because of his pride in his own Irish roots. Mr. Trump’s senior strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, boasts of his “blue-collar, Irish Catholic” family background. Kellyanne Conway (née Fitzpatrick) is half-Irish. Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly, who has the job of enforcing Mr. Trump’s anti-immigrant policies, “is remembered fondly” in Massachusetts, according to The Boston Globe, “as an adventurous Irish Catholic son who reached the highest echelons of military service.”

These are intelligent people, and it seems unlikely that they are so romantic as to imagine they’re descended from Irish kings and Celtic goddesses. Most probably, some of their ancestors were wretched people. The Irish Catholic immigrants who washed up in the United States after the potato famine of the 1840s were, on the whole, the most destitute national group ever to arrive on American shores.

They were nobody’s ideal of the desirable immigrant. The typical Irish Catholic arrival in New York or Boston was a peasant with little formal education and few material resources. Worse, these people were religious aliens — the papist hordes who threatened to swamp Protestant civilization and, in their ignorance and superstition, destroy enlightened democratic American values.

The people around Mr. Trump surely know this history, yet they act as if they were the descendants not of these poor immigrants but of the American nativists and Know Nothings who slandered and derided them. Mr. Trump’s assertion that millions of illegal immigrants voted to deprive him of his victory in the popular vote directly echoes one of the most common charges against the Irish in the 19th century: that, in the words of one Yankee, “Irishmen fresh from the bogs of Ireland” were led to the polling booths “like dumb brutes” to “vote down intelligent, honest native citizens.”

The relentless campaign to associate undocumented migrants with criminality reworks the charge that Irish Catholics were innately crooked and violent. And the demonization of Muslims as implicitly un-American reproduces the canard that Irish Catholics could not be trusted in high office because they would take orders from the Vatican. As late as 1960, John F. Kennedy faced exactly these slurs in a presidential election.

In the Trump era, there are only two ways to toast the achievements of the Irish in America. One of them is tacitly racist. It relies on a silent distinction, an assumption that the Irish are somehow different from, say, today’s migrants from Latin America. But what is that distinction? It is not that the Irish were wealthier or better educated by contemporary standards, or more highly skilled or harder working. It is simply that they were white and their whiteness gave them a right to be in the United States.

If we are not to collude in this obnoxious distinction, people of Irish descent must celebrate their heritage in a radically different way: as the ultimate rebuke to a paranoid frenzy about immigration. We Irish are not Know Nothings. We know something important: what it’s like to be feared, to be discriminated against, to be stereotyped. We know from our own family histories that anti-immigrant hysteria is founded on lies. And we know that, over time, those lies are exposed. Yesterday’s alien is today’s workmate; yesterday’s pariah is today’s patriot.

St. Patrick’s Day is always in danger of being drowned in beer and sentimentality, but President Trump and his inner circle of Irish-Americans have given it the possibility of renewed gravity and seriousness. They have made it what it once was when the Irish were outsiders: a day when people who are in the shadows stand up and say, “We belong here.”

The Irish belong, not because they are better or worse than any other group of migrants, now or in the past. They belong because they are exactly the same: hopeful people doing their best to build dignified lives.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-17, 16:34, said:

My,my! You disagree! How restrained.

I presume you think this this opinion piece invalid, then.

Quote

In a similar vein, the conservative group Turning Point USA recently published a “Professor Watchlist,” a catalogue of what it thinks are dangerous and “anti-American” professors who deserve public shaming for allegedly trying to “advance a radical agenda in lecture halls.” (Among those “radical agenda” items: advocating gun control, calling Ted Cruz’s infamous “New York values” statement anti-Semitic.) The watchlist homepage of course includes a disclaimer that Turning Point will “continue to fight for free speech and the right for professors to say whatever they wish.”

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-17, 18:01, said:

I presume you think this this opinion piece invalid, then.

You seem to think that publishing something adverse is in the same category as hitting a person in the head with a rock or or blunt weapon, or breaking windows and destroying property.

[rmnka447]

 mikeh, on 2017-March-17, 16:09, said:

There speaks someone with only a 'sound-bite' level of understanding of history.

Thanks for your opinion, and that's all it is -- an opinion, happily it's not a fact. But then again isn't that part of your tactics? You impugn anyone who disagrees with you as ignorant or superficial and not to be listened to.

Quote

As it happens, I am almost finished reading a current book about the rise of the Nazi party. What is truly striking are the passages from Mein Kampf (translated into English) in which Hitler wrote about propaganda and the importance of appealing to emotion, not reason, when seeking support. Keep it simple, don't worry about whether what one says is 'true'

In addition, once Hitler was Chancellor (as part of a coalition), he often made speeches in which he denounced the extraordinary violence being perpetrated by his supporters, but in the same speech gave clear signals, to those prepared to listen, that suggested that the violence was fine with him and justified.

The resemblance to Trump's tactics, including that part of the address to Congress where he pretended to deplore violence, is striking.

So my rebuttal to winstonm was about free speech on campuses and you go off on President Trump likening him to a second coming of Hitler. I think the propaganda technique is to deflect the discussion to another subject. Nice Try.

OK, but I guess maybe you missed the parts where Nazis used violence to break up meetings of dissenters and stop any dissent. So explain to me how the instances I cited don't fall into the category of doing just that. Their purpose went beyond simply protesting what the speaker would likely say and to prevent the speeches/discourse in the first place. If you can't see the parallel, so be it. I certainly can.

Quote

So I do agree with the broad theme that there are currently some truly disturbing similarities between 1930's Germany and today's USA.....just not the one the poster was suggesting. But, heck...why let facts get in the way of a nice sounding post? I mean, aren't alternative facts even better than truth amongst trump-boys?

Well, saying that "The resemblance to Trump's tactics, including that part of the address to Congress where he pretended to deplore violence, is striking." isn't a fact. Can you prove that Trump was pretending to deplore violence? That's an opinion NOT a fact. It's my opinion that his comments were genuinely made.

It is your opinion that there are similarities between 1930's Germany and today's USA because of Trump. Fine, that's your right. Just don't try to pass it off as fact.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-March-17, 22:18, said:

You seem to think that publishing something adverse is in the same category as hitting a person in the head with a rock or or blunt weapon, or breaking windows and destroying property.

You must like to make yourself look stupid.

[jogs]

 barmar, on 2017-March-17, 09:02, said:

What it means is that there's no evidence of a level of voter fraud that would swing elections and justify extreme measures to combat it.

There was also no claim that voter fraud changed the results of any state.

Most voter fraud occurred in blue states. Hillary was always winning those states. The claim was voter fraud increased the magnitude of her wins in some blue states.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-18, 07:52, said:

You must like to make yourself look stupid.

Just trying to follow your example.

[kenberg]

It's hard to say much new on this. Early on as Trump campaigned I said that I objected specifically to Trump. That remains true. Not that I am any great fan of his polices either, but I am more inclined than some of my fellow Dems to acknowledge the need for a strong military, and while I do strongly support helping those in need I also think that some people have a talent for disaster. I have known some and helping them is just an endless drain. Social problems are complex.

But Trump? The Brits helped in an illegal Obama plan to wiretap Trump Towers? Even if wiretap is in quotes this is reckless to say. Or maybe especially if wiretap is in quotes, since then it comes across a reckless nonsense, which I think it is. I feel stupid starting a sentence on this with "Even if it is true", it's like "Even if it is true that there is an invisible alien spaceship in my backyard.." But of course I don't know what British intelligence does, and I don't know what the aliens might be doing in my back yard. But even if it is true, so I say it now, this is a completely unacceptable way of approaching it. You gather the evidence and then, but only then, you set out the claim, simultaneously laying out the clear evidence. What is being done is just monumentally dumb. Works well as a distraction of course, we have all seen this tactic from him over and over, but awful in the long term.

We are going to have no friends. The meeting with Merkel apparently did not go well, except of course Trump thinks, or says, it was great.

In real life, if I find myself having to deal with someone like Trump I simply accept it as an unfortunate fact and engage with him as little as possible. Not great, but it's the only realistic path. Surely the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Swedes, and probably the penguins in Antarctica are all thinking about how to cope and coming to a similar conclusion. They will engage with us only when they have to, the rest of the time they will work with each other and let us travel on our solo flight. Ignore what Trump says, it means nothing, cope as well as possible with whatever he does when he does it. By all means do not engage unless there is no choice. And then as little as possible.

This is not going well and it will get worse.

[nullve]

 mikeh, on 2017-March-17, 16:09, said:

However, Bannon has pretensions to intellect. He has already quoted Lenin in one interview, and it is not a far stretch to think that he will have read similar works.

He may have read Foundations of Geopolitics by this snuggle lump, since they both seem to admire Julius Evola.

[ggwhiz]

 kenberg, on 2017-March-18, 10:01, said:

We are going to have no friends. The meeting with Merkel apparently did not go well, except of course Trump thinks, or says, it was great.

In real life, if I find myself having to deal with someone like Trump I simply accept it as an unfortunate fact and engage with him as little as possible.

With our weak dollar inhibiting Canadians from travelling to the US, add to that our political distaste for this administration and there are already signs that tourism and cross border shopping trips from even here (arguably your best friends) may well drop off the cliff.

Any hard line NAFTA renegotiation rather than tweaks to improve it will seal that deal and we don't trust your guys.

[Al_U_Card]

 ggwhiz, on 2017-March-18, 10:13, said:

With our weak dollar inhibiting Canadians from travelling to the US, add to that our political distaste for this administration and there are already signs that tourism and cross border shopping trips from even here (arguably your best friends) may well drop off the cliff.

Any hard line NAFTA renegotiation rather than tweaks to improve it will seal that deal and we don't trust your guys.

Perhaps their strong $ and improving economy will result in greater tourism revenues for us (much more important to us than our tourism to them). Certainly no less so than Nixon's reference to Justin's dad as "that asshole Trudeau" or even the Reagan's and Mulrony's rendition of Irish eyes...)
We could always send Perry Mason to win them over with his haughty, arrogant disdain. Surely they would be convinced by his eloquence?

[Winstonm]

The question of whether or not healthcare is a right has already been answered as our laws require hospitals that accept Medicare payments to treat any patient regardless of ability to pay. The question then becomes what is the best way to fulfill that right as the emergency room treatment model is the least cost effective and affects insurance rates to insurance holders, not to mention increasing hospital costs.

[jogs]

Comparing Trump to Hitler.
More twisted logic from the progressive left.
Hitler wanted to conquer Europe.
Trump doesn't want any part of Mexico.
Merkel managed to conquer Europe without firing a shot.

The progressive left is anti-free speech. They do act like Nazi storm troopers whenever someone speaks against the policies of the progressive left.

[Winstonm]

 jogs, on 2017-March-19, 10:35, said:

Comparing Trump to Hitler.
More twisted logic from the progressive left.
Hitler wanted to conquer Europe.
Trump doesn't want any part of Mexico.

I think the Putin model of authoritarianism is closer to what Trump uses, but even then there are comparisons to Hitler that are valid:

What about Hitler's and Trump's appeals to nationalism?
What about Hitler's and Trump's scapegoating minority groups as the source of the countries' problems?
What about Hitler's and Trump's desires to increase their military?

The Trumpettes like to bury their heads in the sand, or perhaps some believe they will become rich oligarchs like their hero.

[awm]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-19, 12:59, said:

I think the Putin model of authoritarianism is closer to what Trump uses, but even then there are comparisons to Hitler that are valid:

What about Hitler's and Trump's appeals to nationalism?
What about Hitler's and Trump's scapegoating minority groups as the source of the countries' problems?
What about Hitler's and Trump's desires to increase their military?

The Trumpettes like to bury their heads in the sand, or perhaps some believe they will become rich oligarchs like their hero.

Of course Trump has not invaded any foreign country, and has not begun mass exterminations of Jews (or any other ethnic group). But it's important to remember that Hitler was in power for 6 years before he started invading other countries, and that the Holocaust also took years to ramp up (and it was never really admitted publicly until after the war). People comparing Trump to Hitler are indicating that they see some terrifying "early signs" in that direction, not that things are currently as bad as Hitler eventually became.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2017-March-17, 09:56, said:

Try expanding your horizons and look for information outside your bubble.

Are you saying that Middlebury didn't happen?