-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which political party actually acts like Nazis? Trump Jr says it's the Democrats.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
Are you suggesting hypocrisy?
The Devil you say!
The Nazi’s did not encourage anyone to confront people in power. If you confronted people in power under the Nazi regime you would be killed.
What we see happening here is people calling any behaviour they don’t like “acting like a Nazi”
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
I can think of one:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/
One of these days you'll stop ignoring things that are inconveniant to your argument.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Maybe you as well. Givin the facts as they stand with this.
So do you acknowledge that the highest positions Republicans have is someone who has, in multiple occasions, invited violence on opponents?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Oh I don't doubt it.
When you look at things from a historical standpoint....
List of assassinated American politicians - Wikipedia
No - and this is the point I was getting at before: drawing the analogy gives Trump defenders an opening to throw a red herring into the discussion: “because 2010s USA isn’t exactlylike 1930s Germany, the lessons of that period have nothing to teach us.”
I’m not confident that the United States has much in the way of checks and balance these days; at least not ones that depend on the Legislative Branch, certainly. So far, the only rare checks on Trump’s power have come from the judiciary, but I question how effective even that will be in future now that Trump has had the chance to name two Supreme Court appointments.
No, I don’t. Trump’s hate and anger seems more widely directed without a clear focus: where Hitler had a laser focus on the Jews, Trump jumps around from target to target.
This week, he seems more focused on Latinos than Muslims. Next week, who knows.
As for his concentration camps, though, I see the 19th-Century Cuban model as more likely than the German model:
The Cuban Holocaust No One Talks About That Inspired The Nazi
IOW, widespread death through neglect and incompetence, not through gas chambers.
People who do - or support - evil don’t like having a mirror held up to what they’re doing. It’s still worth doing, though. It’s just a question of choosing the best tactics.
Even to the point of not acknowledging the danger?
And if you think that all Trump is doing is “cracking down on illegal immigration,” then you need to educate yourself on what’s going on.
And the situation I mentioned - refugee claimants seeking asylum - doesn’t even involve illegal immigration. The Trump regime’s treatment of immigrants who did break the law is unconscionable, but there are many people in custody now who literally did nothing wrong and broke no US laws.
I have. Using one approach doesn’t mean it has to be your only approach.
On his merits, the Trump regime is a violent, authoritarian nightmare that has victimized many vulnerable people. A comparison to Hitler can be, if the other side is willing to listen, an evocative way to express this idea, but it’s certainly not necessary to get the point across.
The real barrier to communication that I see is that many Trump supporters do really seem to see “outsiders” like undocumented immigrants, Muslims, and people of other political views as less than human.
This above seems to be at odds with this:
Considering historical examples of Trump literally calling for violence.
Do you agree? I want to hear you say it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Against fellow countrymen? You tell me.
This evasiveness speaks volumes.
tytlyf
Not Religious
For those still lost.
People need to realize that Dinesh is a felon, makes propaganda movies to fool conservatives, paid for by the republican elitists and a liar. The south wasn't liberal 100 years ago. I can't believe people are this thick.
The nazi platform echo's today's Republican base.
Nazi platform did not echo today's Democratic platform
Nazi's don't vote democratic today, they did 100 years ago. DemoKKKrats love the confederate flag, those same conservatives now vote republican. Confederate General Robert E Lee was a DemoKKKrat. This is American history.
People need to realize that Dinesh is a felon, makes propaganda movies to fool conservatives, paid for by the republican elitists and a liar. The south wasn't liberal 100 years ago. I can't believe people are this thick.
The nazi platform echo's today's Republican base.
Nazi platform did not echo today's Democratic platform
Nazi's don't vote democratic today, they did 100 years ago. DemoKKKrats love the confederate flag, those same conservatives now vote republican. Confederate General Robert E Lee was a DemoKKKrat. This is American history.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Augustus
…
Across a range of points you have agreed that the 2 situations are very different.
Isolating any of them as a 'red herring' is missing the bigger picture. It's not that it is invalid because USA isn't exactly like 30s Germany, but because contemporary US is not even remotely like 30s Germany.
Even a single difference can render an analogy inapt if that difference is vital to the situation's nature, and in this situation we have multiple differences which are vital to the situation's nature.
Do you believe the checks and balances are sufficient to prevent genocide in the near future?
So you see hundreds of thousands of deaths as a likely consequence of current events?
Trumps policies and rhetoric are quite harsh by Western standards, although given that Australia send asylum seekers to camps in Nauru and PNG for years until their applications are processed they certainly aren't without equal.
By average global standards then they don't stand out as being unusually harsh. Far worse happens as a matter of course in many countries without Hitler analogies being chucked around left, right and centre.
If Nazi analogies are apt in the US, then they are probably apt in half the countries in the world one way or another.
One of Trump's biggest frustrations is his failure to get his own way on issues.
The purpose of analogy should be to clarify and enlighten a situation that would otherwise be harder to understand. Identifying superficial and specious similarities between 2 situations in order to attach emotional significance to a partisan point may be useful for preaching to the choir, but is an effort in partisan advocacy rather than clarification.
If you go full Hitler with something like this, what would you do if things got more extreme? You've already cried wolf too often.
Again: this is the problem with using comparisons to Hitler. Saying “the danger now in the US is akin to the danger that faced Germany in the early 30s” magically morphs as it goes through the air until it hits the ears of a Trump supporter, who hears it as “The US now is exactly like Germany in the 30s... but if you can find just one difference, you can dismiss my whole argument and stop worrying.”
No, I don’t.
Not more likely than not, but likely enough to take the threat very seriously. The ingredients for genocide are present; whether events will bring these ingredients together is hard to say.
If I had to put a number on it, I’d say maybe 1 in 3? 1 in 4?
And Australia gets condemned for their treatment of refugees. Not exactly a good club to be in.
By average global standards, large-scale deaths of refugees due to mistreatment aren’t unheard-of.
And worse has been perpetrated by the US itself. The US government had a hand in creating many of the situations that led to the refugees sitting in American concentration camps fleeing their countries.
But “left, right, and centre?” That’s an exaggeration. Speaking for myself, I’ve only rarely used the analogy; I only defended it here because I think it has a place as a tool in the toolbox.
There are plenty of examples of evil in the world. And there have been genocides since WWII. Only hubris would make someone believe that it can’t happen in the US.
A failure Hitler early in his career would have sympathized with.
The similarities are much more than “superficial” and “specious,” but to get a Trump supporter to acknowledge this means getting them to acknowledge negative traits in themselves. You can’t get someone to agree that their racism and xenophobia has the potential to kill lots of people until they agree that they’re racist and xenophobic, so it’s always going to be an uphill battle.
But what you call “preaching to the choir” can also be thought of as “rallying the troops,” which has purposes of its own. There’s great value in getting the message through to people opposed to what Trump is doing to get up, get involved, and do something to help stop it.
If you can’t “go full Hitler” when a country’s leader with autocratic tendencies has “undesirable” members of society rounded up en masse and put in concentration camps, when would it be appropriate? Trump really is inviting the comparisons with what he’s doing.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
So, let's get this right:
You accuse leftwings and democrats specifically of using violence and violent tactics and list several examples of this. When challenged to support your assertion, you present ONE article that suggest certain left-wing groups MAY be becoming more violent, and then justify the rest of your assertions by saying "Well, they'll BECOME more violent in the future"?
Not a great argument, is it.
tytlyf
Not Religious
The old slippery slope argument that works well on those that are paranoid and fearful.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
We will see perchance the left loses the next presidential election cycle.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Or we'll see the opposite happen if they win it, or we won't see anything at all.
That's the thing about the future. We can all say whatever we like. But postulating on an imaginary future does make a solid foundation for an argument.