The Turn When I saw the left give up everything I believe in, I changed politically. You can, too.

[TitanTiger 21,342]

1 hour ago, aubaseball said:

There is no paradise on earth.  So I don’t exactly know what you are looking to achieve on this planet?   
And why is the default time on “make America great again “ always have to go back to slavery, segregation or any of the other negative times ?  Do you have a problem with the 80’s, 90’s or even the 2000’s?   Do those decades count? Or is your real problem with just with the man who was behind it?   It’s just a slogan.  Just like build back better.   People can form their own opinions as to what they mean.  

I don't remember anyone in those time periods thinking it was a period when America was great.  Even then they were yearning for a previous era - the 1960s before the hippies and Vietnam protests, the 1950s with the booming economy and "family values", the pre-New Deal era of smaller government.  Of course all of those times came with their own set of major problems - Jim Crow, lynchings, discrimination, segregation, rampant and excused misogyny, internment camps.

[wdefromtx 3,641]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

No man, I agree 10000% 

 

Just like the ole Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Had absolutely no chance of success and was hardly a coup at all. That Adolf guy was such a silly, goofy figure they may have charged him with treason, but really it wasn't that bad and a few years in jail really straightened the guy out. It was a stupid, unbelievably poor attempt at a coup. 

I wish America would take Germany's example and not take it all so seriously. what's the worse that can happen? 

 

Yeah, cuz America is just like Germany in the 1920's and Trump is as evil as Hitler. 

If you think the two are somehow remotely similar, you need to lay off the crack. Or turn off CNN...maybe both. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

31 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You do know that Hitler WAS ELECTED in a far as we know fair election. He did not get to power from a coup. Far from it. He learned that a coup was a waste of time. He bided his time and won his way to Chancellor.

there is some truth to this. 

Hitler himself ran for President in 1932 but lost to Hindenburg 37% to 53%. The Nazi party itself did fairly well in the election winning 33% of the German parliament.  Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor by a very old, and feeble President Hindenburg, and supported by other government officials that thought they could contain the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazi's. That obviously didn't happen. Hitler became chancellor, expelled the leftist parties from the Parliament and then declared himself dictator. The rest is history.

While the Nazi party itself did have some popular support in Germany, Hitler himself was never democratically elected and the Nazis never democratically gained a majority of votes in elections. Hitler was granted dictatorial powers by Parliament through the Enabling Act, but he was only able to get the votes for that after he expelled Communists and made sure the liberal, social Democrats were threatened and that some of them weren't able to show up for the vote. He was granted his powers "constitutionally" by pulling together the minority conservative parties and holding a vote without  the opposition present while his paramilitary supporters surrounded the parliament building. 

 

It wasn't a "coup" in the traditional sense, but Hitler also wasn't elected into power himself and he only gained power by making sure the majority that was against him couldn't vote. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yeah, cuz America is just like Germany in the 1920's and Trump is as evil as Hitler. 

If you think the two are somehow remotely similar, you need to lay off the crack. Or turn off CNN...maybe both. 

When did I say any of that? 

 

DKW said that Jan6 shouldn't be taken seriously or talked about because it failed and was never going to result in the overthrow of the US government. 

I'm pointing out a historical example of where a failed, pointless coup attempt eventually did succeed through apathy and a weak central government.   

[wdefromtx 3,641]

Just now, CoffeeTiger said:

When did I say any of that? 

 

DKW said that Jan6 shouldn't be taken seriously or talked about because it failed and was never going to result in the overthrow of the US government. 

I'm pointing out a historical example of where a failed, pointless coup attempt eventually did succeed through apathy and a weak central government.   

Your response with the comparison implies that you think there are similarities between the two. It is only fair to assume that since when one brings up the 4 years of Hillary and the dems trying to undermine democracy, they get accused of saying that what they did is equal to what Trump tried to do. The two methods are obviously different and one more egregious than the other , although they did a good job of planting the seed of doubt in our elections that Trump tried to play on. 

Both sides have tried to undermine our democracy to gain a political advantage against each other. Both potentially could be considered coups. One just happened to be more overt. I would not be surprised to see both sides kick it up a notch in the future. Greed is a hell of a motivator and at some point the cards will have to come crashing down some. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

38 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Your response with the comparison implies that you think there are similarities between the two. It is only fair to assume that since when one brings up the 4 years of Hillary and the dems trying to undermine democracy, they get accused of saying that what they did is equal to what Trump tried to do. The two methods are obviously different and one more egregious than the other , although they did a good job of planting the seed of doubt in our elections that Trump tried to play on. 

Both sides have tried to undermine our democracy to gain a political advantage against each other. Both potentially could be considered coups. One just happened to be more overt. I would not be surprised to see both sides kick it up a notch in the future. Greed is a hell of a motivator and at some point the cards will have to come crashing down some. 

Haha, why yes. Storming the capitol, kicking in windows, Looting the offices  of the speaker of the house and sending congress running and hiding in panic is just a smidge more overt than anything Democrats and Hillary supporters have done. 
 

but sure, both sides are just as bad as each other. Can’t say anything bad about MAGAs because Hillary once said the election was stolen from her or something. 

[wdefromtx 3,641]

16 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Haha, why yes. Storming the capitol, kicking in windows, Looting the offices  of the speaker of the house and sending congress running and hiding in panic is just a smidge more overt than anything Democrats and Hillary supporters have done. 
 

but sure, both sides are just as bad as each other. Can’t say anything bad about MAGAs because Hillary once said the election was stolen from her or something. 

You can say as much bad about MAGA's as you want, makes no difference to me. I would just watch out when throwing stones in a glass house. BTW, Hillary just didn't say it once. The dems tried like hell to delegitimize our election process and Trump for 4 years. But, you just dismissing that is par for the course. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,914]

39 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

You can say as much bad about MAGA's as you want, makes no difference to me. I would just watch out when throwing stones in a glass house. BTW, Hillary just didn't say it once. The dems tried like hell to delegitimize our election process and Trump for 4 years. But, you just dismissing that is par for the course. 

Bad comparison again. 

in 2016 7 Democratic House members objected to certifying Trumps win, No Sentate democrats supported it and the objection was batted down by Vice president Biden and the certification went on as planned with biden saying "It's over there is no debate" 

In 2020 7 Republican senators and 130 Republican House members objected to certifying votes from various states. Thats with several Republicans going on record as changing their mind and deciding to certify the election after the rioters stormed the Capitol. 

There really isn't a comparison. A few democrats cried about 2016 and made feeble objections that the Democratic party didn't support. in contrast Hundreds of Republicans supported overturning the 2020 election and had the support of a majority of the Republican Party. If Mike Pence had played ball and did what Trump ordered him to do then who knows what could have happened.  

Not the same........not even close. 

 

Saying (and then proving through an investigation) That Russia interfered through a disinformation campaign to influence the election in support of Trump isn't the same as saying "Democrats stole the election. No proof but believe me. We need to not certify the election and keep Trump in office" 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[alexava 6,976]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:19 AM, DKW 86 said:

3.2.1....

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-bowman-white-man-joe-manchin-doesnt-care-about-black-people-immigrants-poor

[wdefromtx 3,641]

6 minutes ago, alexava said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-bowman-white-man-joe-manchin-doesnt-care-about-black-people-immigrants-poor

Predictable party is predictable……

Right on cue, good call! 

[AUFAN78 4,161]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:32 AM, homersapien said:

Bring back segregation!

You CRT proponents are working on it.

[SLAG-91 1,612]

5 hours ago, alexava said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-bowman-white-man-joe-manchin-doesnt-care-about-black-people-immigrants-poor

This is probably a bit of a sidetrack, but maybe separate out some of the proposed legislation into smaller pieces and let it be voted on on its own merits. It is one of the things that Congress critters do with legislation that irritates the s*** out of me...no bill needs to be literally 1000s of pages long packed with items that are unrelated to the primary thrust of the bill. Or, if it's so general as to not have a primary focus, then it should be re-written, and likely broken into smaller bits.

End rant.

Continue the jousting, y'all.

[alexava 6,976]

26 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

This is probably a bit of a sidetrack, but maybe separate out some of the proposed legislation into smaller pieces and let it be voted on on its own merits. It is one of the things that Congress critters do with legislation that irritates the s*** out of me...no bill needs to be literally 1000s of pages long packed with items that are unrelated to the primary thrust of the bill. Or, if it's so general as to not have a primary focus, then it should be re-written, and likely broken into smaller bits.

End rant.

Continue the jousting, y'all.

Absolutely. Some would consider doing this too difficult. Not being able to get it porky enough. They try to sneak much of it bye because it can’t stand on its own merits. 

[DKW 86 7,914]

19 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

there is some truth to this. 

Hitler himself ran for President in 1932 but lost to Hindenburg 37% to 53%. The Nazi party itself did fairly well in the election winning 33% of the German parliament.  Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor by a very old, and feeble President Hindenburg, and supported by other government officials that thought they could contain the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazi's. That obviously didn't happen. Hitler became chancellor, expelled the leftist parties from the Parliament and then declared himself dictator. The rest is history.

While the Nazi party itself did have some popular support in Germany, Hitler himself was never democratically elected and the Nazis never democratically gained a majority of votes in elections. Hitler was granted dictatorial powers by Parliament through the Enabling Act, but he was only able to get the votes for that after he expelled Communists and made sure the liberal, social Democrats were threatened and that some of them weren't able to show up for the vote. He was granted his powers "constitutionally" by pulling together the minority conservative parties and holding a vote without  the opposition present while his paramilitary supporters surrounded the parliament building. 

It wasn't a "coup" in the traditional sense, but Hitler also wasn't elected into power himself and he only gained power by making sure the majority that was against him couldn't vote. 

BLAH BLAH BLAH, Short take is: It wasnt a coup.

[bigbird 60,942]

23 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

No man, I agree 10000% 

 

Just like the ole Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Had absolutely no chance of success and was hardly a coup at all. That Adolf guy was such a silly, goofy figure they may have charged him with treason, but really it wasn't that bad and a few years in jail really straightened the guy out. It was a stupid, unbelievably poor attempt at a coup. 

I wish America would take Germany's example and not take it all so seriously. what's the worse that can happen? 

 

Reductio ad Hitlerum 

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Reductio ad Hitlerum 

Ad hominem. 

[bigbird 60,942]

7 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Ad hominem. 

I'm certainly not attacking anyone. If it came across that way, my apologies. I just as easily could've said Godwin's law. 

CT is intelligent and loquacious enough not to have to invoke Nazism. We should expect better from all of us.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

I'm certainly not attacking anyone. If it came across that way, my apologies. I just as easily could've said Godwin's law. 

CT is intelligent and loquacious enough not to have to invoke Nazism. We should expect better from all of us.

But he's not invoking Nazism. You're all focusing on the wrong part. It's not a prediction of genocide or attempted world domination. It's a clear blueprint for how an authoritarian ascends to dictatorship through political means. 

Surely you don't deny that, however clumsy and ham-handed he was about it, trump attempted to subvert the democratic process and remain in office illegitimately? I mean, I know that you predicted that he wouldn't and it's hard to acknowledge that was incorrect, but you must know now in your heart that a sitting POTUS tried very hard to cheat his way into a second term and misled his base into believing the election was stolen and not decided legitimately. 

So do explain exactly how there are no parallels between what trump has attempted thus far and what Hitler accomplished in seizing power. Do revisit how several of you made predictions on how trump would just go away and yet he is still the presumptive GOP nominee for the 2024 presidential election, and how Hitler actually going to jail between "terms" isn't in any way a cautionary tale. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Also, those of you who insist on downplaying what happened in and immediately after this past election... why? What is your aim? What are you protecting? What is the cost of further examination? What is won by this going away?

 

[DKW 86 7,914]

4 hours ago, McLoofus said:

But he's not invoking Nazism. You're all focusing on the wrong part. It's not a prediction of genocide or attempted world domination. It's a clear blueprint for how an authoritarian ascends to dictatorship through political means. 

Surely you don't deny that, however clumsy and ham-handed he was about it, trump attempted to subvert the democratic process and remain in office illegitimately? I mean, I know that you predicted that he wouldn't and it's hard to acknowledge that was incorrect, but you must know now in your heart that a sitting POTUS tried very hard to cheat his way into a second term and misled his base into believing the election was stolen and not decided legitimately. 

So do explain exactly how there are no parallels between what trump has attempted thus far and what Hitler accomplished in seizing power. Do revisit how several of you made predictions on how trump would just go away and yet he is still the presumptive GOP nominee for the 2024 presidential election, and how Hitler actually going to jail between "terms" isn't in any way a cautionary tale. 

The point in the post was that Hitler tried a half assed coup in 1923 but finally pulled it off…. Actually Hitler turned solely to politics after his time in prison. He and the Nazis came to power by the mounting powernof the ballot box. 

 

[DKW 86 7,914]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Also, those of you who insist on downplaying what happened in and immediately after this past election... why? What is your aim? What are you protecting? What is the cost of further examination? What is won by this going away?

 

1. I truly dont think it was anything near as tragic as some if the pearl clutchers here want to fantasize it to be. It was bad, and, like Hitler, some including trunp should go to jail. Was it really a valid attempt at a coup? No. It was like everything else trump has ever done, half assed and half thought out and truly not supported by any real number of people nor the number nor the powerful people needed for it to have ever succeeded. 

2. Since HRC ran the worst campaign in the world and lost to the worst candidate in the world, some have hyperventilated that it was the end of the world. I am not yet convinced trump even really wanted to win. 

Will he run again? Probably. If the rest of America can just focus on campaigning like sane folks, offer real popular policies and not scream “trump” and rely on it to win, I truly hope and think that we will retire trump and biden and just maybe return to normal again. 

BTW, Merry Christmas and Best Wishes to everyone on the forum. I just choose tk believe that this insane portion of our national experience is about to end and we return to business of serving the people. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by DKW 86

[homersapien 12,265]

On 12/20/2021 at 11:30 AM, aubaseball said:

No was intentional.   It doesn’t need to be put in because it’s only about getting to greatness.   It would figure that you would go straight to the race card.   
it didn’t change the fact that you didn’t even answer the question without bringing in race.   Says a lot about you 

No you are wrong.  Make America Great AGAIN clearly implies that we were once greater than we are now. 

I don't believe that.  I think we have made steady progress throughout our history - with a few set backs.  But generally speaking we've made progress in most categories. (Although what happens over the next decade or so could certainly change my mind.)

Regardless, there is a lot of difference between the slogan "Make America Great" and Make America Great Again". 

The former is straightforward and has no implied or subliminal messaging.  The latter implies we need to revert back to some point when we were greater than we are today.  The begs the obvious question of what exactly was great in our past which is not great today. 

It also provides subliminal messaging to people who fear loss of power that is rooted in racism,  xenophobia, immigration etc.  This is no accident.  If Trump's message was simply intended to say "make America great" he wouldn't have added the "again".  He was obviously catering to the crowd that are dissatisfied with what is happening now.  So what, exactly, is it that made America "great" then and less than great now?   Is it wealth, technology, society, justice?  What do you think Trump had in mind by saying "again"?

I have witnessed a lot of our history first hand, both good and bad, particularly regarding racism. I have witnessed white supremacy and blatant, legal racism. (And it wasn't that long ago.)  We still have a lot of issues related to race as many statistics illustrate.

So if my acknowledgement of the reality of our past "says a lot about me",  then I am proud to agree.

 

 

 

[homersapien 12,265]

On 12/21/2021 at 1:31 PM, wdefromtx said:

Your response with the comparison implies that you think there are similarities between the two. It is only fair to assume that since when one brings up the 4 years of Hillary and the dems trying to undermine democracy, they get accused of saying that what they did is equal to what Trump tried to do. The two methods are obviously different and one more egregious than the other , although they did a good job of planting the seed of doubt in our elections that Trump tried to play on. 

Both sides have tried to undermine our democracy to gain a political advantage against each other. Both potentially could be considered coups. One just happened to be more overt. I would not be surprised to see both sides kick it up a notch in the future. Greed is a hell of a motivator and at some point the cards will have to come crashing down some. 

"4 years of Hillary and the Democrats trying to undermine democracy?" 

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,641]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

"4 years of Hillary and the Democrats trying to undermine democracy?" 

 

 

Don’t worry, I knew you’d turn a blind eye to it. After all she isn’t the evil Trump right? 

[homersapien 12,265]

On 12/22/2021 at 9:20 AM, bigbird said:

I'm certainly not attacking anyone. If it came across that way, my apologies. I just as easily could've said Godwin's law. 

CT is intelligent and loquacious enough not to have to invoke Nazism. We should expect better from all of us.

So, we shouldn't use Germany and Nazism as a highly pertinent, fairly recent historical example to make a point?

I think you are confusing the act of simply calling someone a "Nazi" in order to avoid making a reasoned case based on historical fact.

CT did not simply call anyone a "Nazi" to sideline or end the debate or even to assert moral virtue.  He presented a reasoned argument using actual historical facts. 

Your attitude that one cannot invoke actual history because the history being invoked is Hitler or the Nazi party is just another way of avoiding the argument that is being made.  Such an argument does not indicate a lack of intelligence. 

If anything, dismissing someone's post simply because they used Hitler or Nazism as an relevant example and that example is reasoned and based on historical fact indicates a lack of "intelligence".

I'd like to see everyone "get better" at debating as well.  But rejecting the consideration of actual history based on nothing more than trying capitalizing on a social meme ("Godwin's law") is not going to achieve it.  Just the opposite.

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by homersapien