TRUMP JUST SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER LETTING HIM PURGE THOUSANDS OF FEDERAL WORKERS FOR DISLOYALTY

Boosted87

Bronze Knight
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
2,434
678
113
Brevard
Theoretically, yes its a huge risk. With Trump, we now have 4 years worth of track record and it doesn't seem like he himself really presents that risk. JMO, but I think the reaction to him has created a much bigger risk to stability and national security than anything he has done.
I see the risk as one that increases over time. Trump demands loyalty to himself personally, not the country or Constitution. People like Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, etc can only take it so long, and they're getting replaced with the kind of "yes men" Trump's ego requires.

The single biggest check on Trump right now is re-election. There's reporting that he wants to fire Wray, Haspel, and Esper if re-elected. That's nuts. Those are all his appointees, but he wants people who will publicly defend him and harass his political enemies in those positions. Even Barr hasn't done enough to get Trump's approval.

A second Trump term eliminates the single biggest guardrail on his presidency - re-election. It also validates his efforts to politicize the DOJ/FBI etc as being affirmed by the public. So right now, there are a bunch of people around Trump advising him on the electoral implications of various things. Whatever counter-weight that provides to his actions is gone if he's re-elected.

So whatever risks are present in the first 4 years are amplified by some factor over the following 4 years. I'm not saying Trump is going to try an overt power grab, but IF that was the end game, your strategy for years 4-8 would look much different than years 1-4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
I see the risk as one that increases over time. Trump demands loyalty to himself personally, not the country or Constitution. People like Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, etc can only take it so long, and they're getting replaced with the kind of "yes men" Trump's ego requires.

The single biggest check on Trump right now is re-election. There's reporting that he wants to fire Wray, Haspel, and Esper if re-elected. That's nuts. Those are all his appointees, but he wants people who will publicly defend him and harass his political enemies in those positions. Even Barr hasn't done enough to get Trump's approval.

A second Trump term eliminates the single biggest guardrail on his presidency - re-election. It also validates his efforts to politicize the DOJ/FBI etc as being affirmed by the public. So right now, there are a bunch of people around Trump advising him on the electoral implications of various things. Whatever counter-weight that provides to his actions is gone if he's re-elected.

So whatever risks are present in the first 4 years are amplified by some factor over the following 4 years. I'm not saying Trump is going to try an overt power grab, but IF that was the end game, your strategy for years 4-8 would look much different than years 1-4.
Or, Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly are part of the Washington swamp that wanted to do things similar to previous administrations and wouldn’t follow the vision of the CinC. There’s always another way to look at it even when the media paints a very one-sided picture.

Wray should be fired at this point. There hasn’t been a sweeping cleanup of the FBI, there hasn’t been an elimination of political leaks, and some of the seminal investigations have gone nowhere. Produce or get out. America, on both sides, are tired of the inaction of career pols and bureaucrats that are far more interesting in protecting their power circles than doing their jobs.
 

Boosted87

Bronze Knight
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
2,434
678
113
Brevard
Or, Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly are part of the Washington swamp that wanted to do things similar to previous administrations and wouldn’t follow the vision of the CinC. There’s always another way to look at it even when the media paints a very one-sided picture.

Wray should be fired at this point. There hasn’t been a sweeping cleanup of the FBI, there hasn’t been an elimination of political leaks, and some of the seminal investigations have gone nowhere. Produce or get out. America, on both sides, are tired of the inaction of career pols and bureaucrats that are far more interesting in protecting their power circles than doing their jobs.
Look if Mattis bails on Trump over policy and that's it, that's totally different. If that was the case, you don't publish an op-ed that says this:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
You're comments on Wray are out there. You're not complaining about process, transparency, truth - etc - you're complaining about the investigations not providing results you've convinced yourself are true. You're not complaining the Chris Wray's FBI has been too political, you're arguing they haven't been political enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Crazyhole

Diamond Knight
Jun 4, 2004
14,200
7,139
113
Mattis's comments are not surprising considering his background. He's a war-hawk and a damn good one at that, but that is his worldview. Trump used him to defeat ISIS in a pretty swift manner and I would guess Mattis probably felt like that kind of approach would continue. From that point on though, Trump took a turn towards being a dove which probably was a surprise to Mattis. Its not unlike how both Patton and MacArthur were critical of not pushing forward militarily after WW2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Cubs79

Silver Knight
Jan 4, 2014
3,700
1,223
113
Mattis's comments are not surprising considering his background. He's a war-hawk and a damn good one at that, but that is his worldview. Trump used him to defeat ISIS in a pretty swift manner and I would guess Mattis probably felt like that kind of approach would continue. From that point on though, Trump took a turn towards being a dove which probably was a surprise to Mattis. Its not unlike how both Patton and MacArthur were critical of not pushing forward militarily after WW2.


ISIS isnt destroyed and Trump has dropped more bombs on Yemen than than Bush and Obama combined. Your post isnt accurate.


You dont think it is telling when so many people who worked closely with him, have spoken out against him? That doesnt really happen with other administrations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Crazyhole

Diamond Knight
Jun 4, 2004
14,200
7,139
113


ISIS isnt destroyed and Trump has dropped more bombs on Yemen than than Bush and Obama combined. Your post isnt accurate.


You dont think it is telling when so many people who worked closely with him, have spoken out against him? That doesnt really happen with other administrations.
Lol at "may have".

Why even write an article about how we "may have" done more bombing in a country that we've basically never done any bombing in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Cubs79

Silver Knight
Jan 4, 2014
3,700
1,223
113
Lol at "may have".

Why even write an article about how we "may have" done more bombing in a country that we've basically never done any bombing in?
Good grief, you are sitting here trying to make him out to be a dove knowing full well he droned the shit out of Yemen. Or maybe you dont know that full well, I shouldnt assume you keep up with such things. It doesnt really matter it if was more or less than Obama/Bush, it was a lot, and he is not a dove.

No comment on ISIS in Africa? Still just going to pretend that Trump destroyed them, despite recent articles about how they are ramping up attacks in Africa?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Crazyhole

Diamond Knight
Jun 4, 2004
14,200
7,139
113
Good grief, you are sitting here trying to make him out to be a dove knowing full well he droned the shit out of Yemen. Or maybe you dont know that full well, I shouldnt assumen you keep up with such things. It doesnt really matter it if was more or less than Obama/Bush, it was a lot, and he is not a dove.

No comment on ISIS in Africa? Still just going to pretend that Trump destroyed them, despite recent articles about how they are ramping up attacks in Africa?
So based on your comments, you are basically upset that Trump "may have" bombed Yemen which means he did something bad, but at the same time you are complaining that he hasn't done bombing in Africa.

What, in your opinion, should he do in both of these situations?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Boosted87

Bronze Knight
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
2,434
678
113
Brevard
Mattis's comments are not surprising considering his background. He's a war-hawk and a damn good one at that, but that is his worldview. Trump used him to defeat ISIS in a pretty swift manner and I would guess Mattis probably felt like that kind of approach would continue. From that point on though, Trump took a turn towards being a dove which probably was a surprise to Mattis. Its not unlike how both Patton and MacArthur were critical of not pushing forward militarily after WW2.
His quote had nothing to do with war-hawking. It was specifically in response to Trump's actions while dealing with civil unrest. I'm sure plenty of cabinet secretaries have had policy disagreements with POTUS throughout various administrations. How many have written an op-ed like that?

I think Hillary Clinton would have been very divisive as President, but Trump is EXTREMELY divisive. That's just not a good trait for a President, and why they were both terrible choices.

I think it would behoove Trump supporters to stop making excuses for this. You have a historically divisive leader right now. That's not the media's fault. It's not the deep state's fault. It's just who he is, and it's bad for the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Cubs79

Silver Knight
Jan 4, 2014
3,700
1,223
113
So based on your comments, you are basically upset that Trump "may have" bombed Yemen which means he did something bad, but at the same time you are complaining that he hasn't done bombing in Africa.

What, in your opinion, should he do in both of these situations?

We know for a fact Trump bombed Yemen, that isnt debatable.

Where did I say I was upset about anything or that he should bomb Africa? You completely just made that up. You said he destroyed ISIS, I just gave you an article about how that isnt true. That is all. You were trying to paint a picture that simply isnt reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Cubs79

Silver Knight
Jan 4, 2014
3,700
1,223
113
His quote had nothing to do with war-hawking. It was specifically in response to Trump's actions while dealing with civil unrest. I'm sure plenty of cabinet secretaries have had policy disagreements with POTUS throughout various administrations. How many have written an op-ed like that?

I think Hillary Clinton would have been very divisive as President, but Trump is EXTREMELY divisive. That's just not a good trait for a President, and why they were both terrible choices.

I think it would behoove Trump supporters to stop making excuses for this. You have a historically divisive leader right now. That's not the media's fault. It's not the deep state's fault. It's just who he is, and it's bad for the country.
It is going to get worse. If Trump loses the conspiracies are going to be everywhere, if he wins then I think Trump himself will even be worse, and his supporters will still defend everything he does. I think 2024 is honestly going to be the most worrisome time though. Tom Cotton is going to step in and try to take over the Trump base, and Cotton is much smarter, and honestly I think way worse than Trump. I think there is a good chance the 2024 Republican candidate is someone who has openly called on using the military against the American people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
Look if Mattis bails on Trump over policy and that's it, that's totally different. If that was the case, you don't publish an op-ed that says this:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
You're comments on Wray are out there. You're not complaining about process, transparency, truth - etc - you're complaining about the investigations not providing results you've convinced yourself are true. You're not complaining the Chris Wray's FBI has been too political, you're arguing they haven't been political enough.
First, I vehemently disagree with Mattis that Trump was first in that Obama intended to and succeeded at dividing us. He was just a whole lot more polite about it. Trump is actually a product of the previous Divider in Chief as Trump didn't think about running for President until President Obama decided to use the WH Correspondent's dinner to roast him. The difference is with Obama's division (other than he didn't spew it on Twitter endlessly) is that the majority of the media outlets, social media, Hollywood, and the whole of the Republican party in Washington didn't make it their goal to demonize Obama. Yes, there were some Congresspeople saying that their goal was to resist Obama and, yes, there were some fringe that spewed Antichrist garbage. But the biggest thing the right did was the birther theory and even that was only really as widespread as the Trump emoluments clause complaints. It was never a non-stop assault on Obama every single day from multiple angles dating to before he was even sworn into office. So, yeah, I disagree with Mattis.

I'm saying that there was a thought that Chris Wray was going to clean up the FBI after a recent director got caught leaking to the press and the whole Hillary thing and then the FISA abuse, the deputy director got busted lying, some field agents showed a lot of dissatisfaction with the national office, etc. AND THEN there is the issue of the apparent FBI reticence to investigate and bring charges against high-ranking Democrats. Which I'm sure you don't even see much less see as a problem, but sitting on the right side of the fence and seeing so many people on the right being wrung up on process crimes while the people of the left that seem to be more egregious go on scott-free, it is being noticed by a lot of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
It is going to get worse. If Trump loses the conspiracies are going to be everywhere, if he wins then I think Trump himself will even be worse, and his supporters will still defend everything he does. I think 2024 is honestly going to be the most worrisome time though. Tom Cotton is going to step in and try to take over the Trump base, and Cotton is much smarter, and honestly I think way worse than Trump. I think there is a good chance the 2024 Republican candidate is someone who has openly called on using the military against the American people.
You realize that many of the "conspiracies" that Trump is spewing were actually conceived by a leftist think tank and propagated as a way to gaslight any legitimate criticism from Republicans.

As for "worse," please list what Trump has actually done to you, your interests, your liberty, or your freedom that would be considered bad.
 

Cubs79

Silver Knight
Jan 4, 2014
3,700
1,223
113
You realize that many of the "conspiracies" that Trump is spewing were actually conceived by a leftist think tank and propagated as a way to gaslight any legitimate criticism from Republicans.

As for "worse," please list what Trump has actually done to you, your interests, your liberty, or your freedom that would be considered bad.
Trump has been talking about voter fraud for years with absolutely no evidence, and if he loses, you damn well know his supporters are going to eat it up. That is a conspiracy coming directly from the president, not lefty think tanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

Crazyhole

Diamond Knight
Jun 4, 2004
14,200
7,139
113
His quote had nothing to do with war-hawking. It was specifically in response to Trump's actions while dealing with civil unrest. I'm sure plenty of cabinet secretaries have had policy disagreements with POTUS throughout various administrations. How many have written an op-ed like that?

I think Hillary Clinton would have been very divisive as President, but Trump is EXTREMELY divisive. That's just not a good trait for a President, and why they were both terrible choices.

I think it would behoove Trump supporters to stop making excuses for this. You have a historically divisive leader right now. That's not the media's fault. It's not the deep state's fault. It's just who he is, and it's bad for the country.
So what do you think a career military general with a reputation for promoting overwhelming force would want the president to do when it comes to social unrest? He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would look at things and say "let's come together, friends."

I'm not saying that his comments are wrong, I just wonder how his worldview coincides with those comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
Trump has been talking about voter fraud for years with absolutely no evidence, and if he loses, you damn well know his supporters are going to eat it up. That is a conspiracy coming directly from the president, not lefty think tanks.
I’m actually interested in your response to my question about direct affects on you from Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

ElprofesorJuan

Four-Star Recruit
Sep 4, 2019
398
89
28
Except that neither Sweden nor Finland are socialist countries. Do go ahead and explain how socialism is great and all the places that faithfully implemented it were dictatorships not socialist countries. You’re still not going to distance the very real and inevitable downside of socialism from what you try to extol as the virtues.
I never said Socialism is great.As boosted has said all countries share Socialist Communist and Capitalist ideas. A true Government-run solely on one form of ideology will fall. All these forms want to ultimately be a utopia. Man uses these systems to seize power. He is essentially the one who corrupts the system. That is my point Examples are Russia Korea China they have had to add Capitalist ideas or risk losing power.
 
Last edited:

Cubs79

Silver Knight
Jan 4, 2014
3,700
1,223
113
I’m actually interested in your response to my question about direct affects on you from Trump.
Well first off, everything isnt about me. But to answer your question, his handling of covid has been terrible and IMO just shows he is over his head. He has talked about getting rid of the payroll tax, which would end social security and medicare which would affect any working person. He is horrible on the environment. If they get of rid of pre existing conditions protections (which they are trying to do right now in court, no matter how many times he says he isnt) that is something that could impact anyone. Those are a few pretty major things off the top of my head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
Well first off, everything isnt about me. But to answer your question, his handling of covid has been terrible and IMO just shows he is over his head. He has talked about getting rid of the payroll tax, which would end social security and medicare which would affect any working person. He is horrible on the environment. If they get of rid of pre existing conditions protections (which they are trying to do right now in court, no matter how many times he says he isnt) that is something that could impact anyone. Those are a few pretty major things off the top of my head.
So Trump is horrible, the end of democracy, Hitler, etc. but you can’t name one way in which his administration has actually had a negative effect on your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. You can name all the hypotheticals thrown out by the media and you can at least say he’s been horrible on the abstract environment, so maybe that touches you, but no actual policy that has caused an adverse effect on your life.

Can you actually read off the EPA regulations that have been cut and the effects they had on the environment and business before and after theywere removed? Or are you just echoing people who see regulatory cuts and freak out that the world is going to end?
 

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
I never said Socialism is great.As boosted has said all countries share Socialist Communist and Capitalist ideas. A true Government-run solely on one form of ideology will fall. All these forms want to ultimately be a utopia. Man uses these systems to seize power. He is essentially the one who corrupts the system. That is my point Examples are Russia Korea China they have had to add Capitalist ideas or risk losing power.
Ok. So let me ask you something. If man is the problem in the system, Agent Smith, then would it make more sense to pick a system that diffuses power among many jurisdictions and individuals or one that consolidated power into a small centralized government.
 

Cubs79

Silver Knight
Jan 4, 2014
3,700
1,223
113
So Trump is horrible, the end of democracy, Hitler, etc. but you can’t name one way in which his administration has actually had a negative effect on your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. You can name all the hypotheticals thrown out by the media and you can at least say he’s been horrible on the abstract environment, so maybe that touches you, but no actual policy that has caused an adverse effect on your life.

Can you actually read off the EPA regulations that have been cut and the effects they had on the environment and business before and after theywere removed? Or are you just echoing people who see regulatory cuts and freak out that the world is going to end?
I dont understand what you mean by hypotheticals. Trying to completely get rid of the ACA, including pre existing condition protections isnt a hypothetical, there is literally a court case ongoing as we speak. He has said he wants to permanently end the payroll tax, that isnt hypothetical. He hasnt done it yet, and likely wont be able to unless Republicans keep the senate and win the house, but he has made his intentions clear, that isnt a hypothetical.



Here is an entire list. Some more important than others obviously, and some have been struck down in court, but if you are honestly interested, here is probably a few hours worth of reading you can do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

chemmie

Todd's Tiki Bar
Gold Member
Jul 26, 2004
23,464
8,687
113
This thread is full of idiots who don't know anything about Hitler nor Socialism. The history is written. You can't change it. Hitler was not a socialist. Read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElprofesorJuan

ElprofesorJuan

Four-Star Recruit
Sep 4, 2019
398
89
28
Ok. So let me ask you something. If man is the problem in the system, Agent Smith, then would it make more sense to pick a system that diffuses power among many jurisdictions and individuals or one that consolidated power into a small centralized government.
In Todays Society no one government system is best. All can be corrupted, Man can consolidate all into one. Billionaires and huge Merging Companies are Examples of Capitalism unchecked. The Stock Market Controls many people's savings. Billionaires can buy political influence. Unregulated Capitalism Is as bad as Unregulated Socialism. We as citizens put to much trust in Companies to do the right thing. Trump's tax plan shows this. Most companies used that money on stock buybacks instead of saving it or spending it on Workers. Then when the Stock market fell the company lost value. Many since then have asked for Assistance. The Nation now needs a correction with more Socialist ideas. For 30 years we have allowed Capitalism to go unchecked and lessened regulations. Its time for a correction. The answer to your question is, We need a system of Government that can adapt both to Socialist and Capitalist ideas. While allowing freedoms to all. Both systems must be checked and not allow one to gain to much Power. Capitalism needs to be corrected now. All inner civil war or strife happens because one side gains too much and the other does not.
 

_glaciers

Five-Star Recruit
Feb 25, 2020
534
324
63
@chemmie unfortunately, I know more than you

Employment for All

Hitler made a huge promise to his people: employment for all. How did he do it? Roads and infrastructure:

As Fuhrer, Hitler’s first priority was jobs, or the lack of them. German unemployment had peaked at 6 million due to the Depression devastating the economy. With innovative public works schemes such as the building of autobahns, Hitler put every German back to work. He also advocated schemes such as KdF – Strength Through Joy – which gave workers increased benefitsfor increased levels of production. This policy was popular and increasingly with the proletariat who had seen their country decimated by the depression...
By putting people back to work and making huge public spending, inflation was bound to happen. However, Hitler kept this under control by not allowing wages to rise with prices. This may have been one unpopular aspect of Hitler’s economic policy but there were many that the people supported.
So Hitler created jobs...through government. While at the same time, he criticized certain segments of the population, demeaning them, blaming the countries woes upon them. The rich, they just ruin everything. Sound familiar?

Big Education
If you haven't seen it yet, go watch WW2 Surivor's Account Draws Chilling Similarities between Nazism and Liberalism.

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.
Public education, where children are at school all day long, with state-funded and state-sponsored curriculum... convinced yet?

Nationalized Healthcare
Also from the WW2 Surivor's accounting of Nazism:

After Hitler's health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.
As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.
Do I really need to write commentary on this one? Really?

Gun Control
Yes, Germany had gun control. It started before Hitler with a national gun registry:

...in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not.
Here's what happened as a result:

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.
Finally, Hitler just took the guns from Jews. An armed citizenry is a dangerous one, after all. Hitler even said this about guns in the hands of the people: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."

In Breslau in 1933, Jews were ordered to “surrender [their] weapons forthwith to the police authorities” on the basis that “Jewish citizens have allegedly used their weapons for unlawful attacks on members of the Nazi organization and the police.” This was a regular occurrence all over Germany until the Waffengesetz of 1938, which effectively banned Jewish firearm ownership in all of Germany (though this had been something of a reality for a while, as in 1935 the Gestapo had ordered no weapons permits to be issued to Jews without the approval of the Gestapo itself).
So excuse us Second Amendment supporters when we here Obama, Sanders and Clinton talking about regulating guns more than they're regulated today. Call us paranoid. We'll keep our guns.

Abortion
The great sacrament of the left, abortion. You'll be pleased to know that Hitler was pro-choice:

Dr. Tessa Chelouche goes on to quote Hitler’s 1942 policy statement on the application of abortion to Slavic people, which is chillingly similar to modern Planned Parenthood propaganda:
"In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman’s health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics."
Compare the Nazi's application of abortion to how Planned Parenthood (a government-funded organization) operates. Also read up on Margaret Sanger, who echoed much of Hitler's sentiment.

Blaming the One Percent Jews
Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat, blaming them for everything, including economic hardship, even though the Jewish population in Germany was less than one percent...

Jews in Germany made up less than one percent of the German population. But held According to the census of June 1933, the Jewish population of Germany consisted of about 500,000 people. Jews represented less than one percent of the total German population of about 67 million people.
Despite that, Hitler insisted on taking their money...

Nearly 120 billion Reich marks – over £12 billion at the time – was plundered from German Jews by laws and looting.
The official study commissioned by the ministry examined the years from 1933 to 1945. Hans-Peter Ullmann, a Cologne history professor, said the tax authorities under the Nazis actively worked to "destroy Jews financially" and to loot wealth in the nations the Germans occupied.
Even Jews who managed to escape from Germany before the Holocaust had to leave part of their wealth behind in the form of an "exit tax". Tax laws discriminated against Jews from 1934 onwards.
And boycotting their businesses...
APRIL 1, 1933 NATIONWIDE BOYCOTT OF JEWISH-OWNED BUSINESSES
At 10:00 a.m., members of the Storm Troopers (SA) and SS (the elite guard of the Nazi state) stand in front of Jewish-owned businesses throughout Germany to inform the public that the proprietors of these establishments are Jewish. The word "Jude," German for "Jew," is often smeared on store display windows, with a Star of David painted in yellow and black across the doors. Anti-Jewish signs accompany these slogans. In some towns, the SA march through the streets singing anti-Jewish slogans and party songs.
Review: Hitler demeaned the Jews. He blamed the economic and national depression on them. He instituted national boycotts of their business. He then took their money through taxes and outright looting. Hey, maybe they weren't paying their "fair share."

The Police State
If you dared oppose the Nazis or Hitler politically, especially with your words, you better watch out. The Gestapo was on the hunt for political dissidents, many of whom would simply vanish.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler also turned the regular (nonparty) police forces into an instrument of terror. He helped forge the powerful Secret State Police (Geheime Staatspolizei), or Gestapo; these non-uniformed police used ruthless and cruel methods throughout Germany to identify and arrest political opponents and others who refused to obey laws and policies of the Nazi regime.
Compare the Gestapo with how leftists want to jail people who do not believe in man-made climate change. Compare the Gestapo to the Gaystapo, who fines people who do not agree with gay marriage or the gay lifestyle. Compare the Gestapo to liberal New York, which fines you for not using the right gender pronouns.

In Conclusion
Hitler was a horrible human being. But aside from how he treated the Jews, aside from his monsterous ways, his polcies were anything but "conservative." He wanted big government, he wanted big eductation, he wanted thought control. He hated political dissidents. He loathed free-speech. He feared an armed citizenry.

So stop saying "Hitler was right-wing." No, he wasn't. If anything, he was a full-fledged left-winger. With a horrible mustache.
 

ElprofesorJuan

Four-Star Recruit
Sep 4, 2019
398
89
28
@chemmie unfortunately, I know more than you

Employment for All

Hitler made a huge promise to his people: employment for all. How did he do it? Roads and infrastructure:


So Hitler created jobs...through government. While at the same time, he criticized certain segments of the population, demeaning them, blaming the countries woes upon them. The rich, they just ruin everything. Sound familiar?

Big Education
If you haven't seen it yet, go watch WW2 Surivor's Account Draws Chilling Similarities between Nazism and Liberalism.


Public education, where children are at school all day long, with state-funded and state-sponsored curriculum... convinced yet?

Nationalized Healthcare
Also from the WW2 Surivor's accounting of Nazism:


Do I really need to write commentary on this one? Really?

Gun Control
Yes, Germany had gun control. It started before Hitler with a national gun registry:


Here's what happened as a result:


Finally, Hitler just took the guns from Jews. An armed citizenry is a dangerous one, after all. Hitler even said this about guns in the hands of the people: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."


So excuse us Second Amendment supporters when we here Obama, Sanders and Clinton talking about regulating guns more than they're regulated today. Call us paranoid. We'll keep our guns.

Abortion
The great sacrament of the left, abortion. You'll be pleased to know that Hitler was pro-choice:


Compare the Nazi's application of abortion to how Planned Parenthood (a government-funded organization) operates. Also read up on Margaret Sanger, who echoed much of Hitler's sentiment.

Blaming the One Percent Jews
Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat, blaming them for everything, including economic hardship, even though the Jewish population in Germany was less than one percent...


Despite that, Hitler insisted on taking their money...




And boycotting their businesses...

Review: Hitler demeaned the Jews. He blamed the economic and national depression on them. He instituted national boycotts of their business. He then took their money through taxes and outright looting. Hey, maybe they weren't paying their "fair share."

The Police State
If you dared oppose the Nazis or Hitler politically, especially with your words, you better watch out. The Gestapo was on the hunt for political dissidents, many of whom would simply vanish.


Compare the Gestapo with how leftists want to jail people who do not believe in man-made climate change. Compare the Gestapo to the Gaystapo, who fines people who do not agree with gay marriage or the gay lifestyle. Compare the Gestapo to liberal New York, which fines you for not using the right gender pronouns.

In Conclusion
Hitler was a horrible human being. But aside from how he treated the Jews, aside from his monsterous ways, his polcies were anything but "conservative." He wanted big government, he wanted big eductation, he wanted thought control. He hated political dissidents. He loathed free-speech. He feared an armed citizenry.

So stop saying "Hitler was right-wing." No, he wasn't. If anything, he was a full-fledged left-winger. With a horrible mustache.
 

Crazyhole

Diamond Knight
Jun 4, 2004
14,200
7,139
113
@chemmie unfortunately, I know more than you

Employment for All

Hitler made a huge promise to his people: employment for all. How did he do it? Roads and infrastructure:


So Hitler created jobs...through government. While at the same time, he criticized certain segments of the population, demeaning them, blaming the countries woes upon them. The rich, they just ruin everything. Sound familiar?

Big Education
If you haven't seen it yet, go watch WW2 Surivor's Account Draws Chilling Similarities between Nazism and Liberalism.


Public education, where children are at school all day long, with state-funded and state-sponsored curriculum... convinced yet?

Nationalized Healthcare
Also from the WW2 Surivor's accounting of Nazism:


Do I really need to write commentary on this one? Really?

Gun Control
Yes, Germany had gun control. It started before Hitler with a national gun registry:


Here's what happened as a result:


Finally, Hitler just took the guns from Jews. An armed citizenry is a dangerous one, after all. Hitler even said this about guns in the hands of the people: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."


So excuse us Second Amendment supporters when we here Obama, Sanders and Clinton talking about regulating guns more than they're regulated today. Call us paranoid. We'll keep our guns.

Abortion
The great sacrament of the left, abortion. You'll be pleased to know that Hitler was pro-choice:


Compare the Nazi's application of abortion to how Planned Parenthood (a government-funded organization) operates. Also read up on Margaret Sanger, who echoed much of Hitler's sentiment.

Blaming the One Percent Jews
Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat, blaming them for everything, including economic hardship, even though the Jewish population in Germany was less than one percent...


Despite that, Hitler insisted on taking their money...




And boycotting their businesses...

Review: Hitler demeaned the Jews. He blamed the economic and national depression on them. He instituted national boycotts of their business. He then took their money through taxes and outright looting. Hey, maybe they weren't paying their "fair share."

The Police State
If you dared oppose the Nazis or Hitler politically, especially with your words, you better watch out. The Gestapo was on the hunt for political dissidents, many of whom would simply vanish.


Compare the Gestapo with how leftists want to jail people who do not believe in man-made climate change. Compare the Gestapo to the Gaystapo, who fines people who do not agree with gay marriage or the gay lifestyle. Compare the Gestapo to liberal New York, which fines you for not using the right gender pronouns.

In Conclusion
Hitler was a horrible human being. But aside from how he treated the Jews, aside from his monsterous ways, his polcies were anything but "conservative." He wanted big government, he wanted big eductation, he wanted thought control. He hated political dissidents. He loathed free-speech. He feared an armed citizenry.

So stop saying "Hitler was right-wing." No, he wasn't. If anything, he was a full-fledged left-winger. With a horrible mustache.
This may be the most epic post of all time
 

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
I dont understand what you mean by hypotheticals. Trying to completely get rid of the ACA, including pre existing condition protections isnt a hypothetical, there is literally a court case ongoing as we speak. He has said he wants to permanently end the payroll tax, that isnt hypothetical. He hasnt done it yet, and likely wont be able to unless Republicans keep the senate and win the house, but he has made his intentions clear, that isnt a hypothetical.



Here is an entire list. Some more important than others obviously, and some have been struck down in court, but if you are honestly interested, here is probably a few hours worth of reading you can do.
Trump has talked about a lot of things that he’s changed his mind on. He thinks out loud way too much. But thoughts aren’t actions. So answer the question. What policies enacted by the Trump administration have a negative effect upon you?

As for regulations, cool you went and googled an answer to my question and you think that makes you intelligent. How about the list of the business-stifling regulations Obama passed in relation to the list Trump has repealed since you’re such a Google master and a condescending ass at that.

On second thought, don’t bother. Just stay in your bubble and think that people need Government to force them to do the right thing and that Trump is the evilest evil that ever eviled, except for Senator Cotton because he’s got an eyepatch which makes him even eviler than Trump.
 

Boosted87

Bronze Knight
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
2,434
678
113
Brevard
So what do you think a career military general with a reputation for promoting overwhelming force would want the president to do when it comes to social unrest? He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would look at things and say "let's come together, friends."

I'm not saying that his comments are wrong, I just wonder how his worldview coincides with those comments.
It should show you how far out-of-whack Trump is on this. There's a bad history of using overwhelming force on protestors in the US. Do we ever look back historically and say "yea the people protesting for civil rights definitely deserved the fire hose." Of course not. Mattis knows this. You dont' defeat civil unrest by escalating the situation. You have to calm it down. Which is precisely why we have civil unrest in the first place - because Trump has been dialing up the temperature for four years.
 

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
It should show you how far out-of-whack Trump is on this. There's a bad history of using overwhelming force on protestors in the US. Do we ever look back historically and say "yea the people protesting for civil rights definitely deserved the fire hose." Of course not. Mattis knows this. You dont' defeat civil unrest by escalating the situation. You have to calm it down. Which is precisely why we have civil unrest in the first place - because Trump has been dialing up the temperature for four years.
Still going to blame the tensions all on Trump? The hundreds of Democrats that have vehemently attacked Trump, and anyone right of center in general, over that time, including wishing that he’d die, bear no responsibility, right? Must be nice to be able to have a boogeyman to absolve you of all your sins.
 

Boosted87

Bronze Knight
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
2,434
678
113
Brevard
In Conclusion
Hitler was a horrible human being. But aside from how he treated the Jews, aside from his monsterous ways, his polcies were anything but "conservative." He wanted big government, he wanted big eductation, he wanted thought control. He hated political dissidents. He loathed free-speech. He feared an armed citizenry.

So stop saying "Hitler was right-wing." No, he wasn't. If anything, he was a full-fledged left-winger. With a horrible mustache.
First - hat tip to a great write up.

Here's the key though. What made the Nazi's "right wing" are the same thing that make modern day Neo-Nazi's "right wing" - extreme nationalism, nativism, and tendencies towards authoritarianism. There's a reason the modern version of Nazism exists as a fringe element of the right today - not the left.

We don't look back and talk about how horrible Nazi Germany was because of all the schools and roads they built. They still build roads and schools just like we do. That part of the platform isn't what was dangerous. Countless democracies build roads and schools and don't end up committing mass murder and starting wars.

Ironically - Trump also loathes free speech. Why do you think he sues so many people who criticize him? Why do you think he calls the press "the enemy of the people"? He leads chants of "lock her up" and publicly calls on his officials to investigate his political rivals.

Government regulating speech is bad. Social pressure to regulate speech is how it's supposed to work. Should a kindergarten teacher be allowed to express their support for NAMBLA on Facebook without consequence? Free speech right?

It's messy - but using social pressure to decide what's OK to say and what isn't, is FAR superior to government regulating said speech. It's not illegal to be Nazi and say horrible things. But no one has to hire you or be your friend. That's NOT "thought control". That's society regulating speech in a free-market like feedback system.
 

Boosted87

Bronze Knight
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
2,434
678
113
Brevard
Still going to blame the tensions all on Trump? The hundreds of Democrats that have vehemently attacked Trump, and anyone right of center in general, over that time, including wishing that he’d die, bear no responsibility, right? Must be nice to be able to have a boogeyman to absolve you of all your sins.
I hope you can see a little more nuance than that. If you are standing outside a burning house and decide to pour gasoline on the fire, you're clearly making things worse. That doesn't mean you bear full responsibility for setting the fire, and it doesn't mean your the only one pouring on gas - but there's simply no denying you are part of the problem.

When you're POTUS - everything is amplified. He's basically got a firehose of gasoline that dwarfs everyone else. And saying "yea but they're mean to me" is just not good enough.
 

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
First - hat tip to a great write up.

Here's the key though. What made the Nazi's "right wing" are the same thing that make modern day Neo-Nazi's "right wing" - extreme nationalism, nativism, and tendencies towards authoritarianism. There's a reason the modern version of Nazism exists as a fringe element of the right today - not the left.

We don't look back and talk about how horrible Nazi Germany was because of all the schools and roads they built. They still build roads and schools just like we do. That part of the platform isn't what was dangerous. Countless democracies build roads and schools and don't end up committing mass murder and starting wars.

Ironically - Trump also loathes free speech. Why do you think he sues so many people who criticize him? Why do you think he calls the press "the enemy of the people"? He leads chants of "lock her up" and publicly calls on his officials to investigate his political rivals.

Government regulating speech is bad. Social pressure to regulate speech is how it's supposed to work. Should a kindergarten teacher be allowed to express their support for NAMBLA on Facebook without consequence? Free speech right?

It's messy - but using social pressure to decide what's OK to say and what isn't, is FAR superior to government regulating said speech. It's not illegal to be Nazi and say horrible things. But no one has to hire you or be your friend. That's NOT "thought control". That's society regulating speech in a free-market like feedback system.
Tell me when Trump used the US Government to lock up journalists for questioning him like his predecessor or a time where he said that he was going to write legislation through executive fiat, then did it and dared everyone to stop him, or how his followers are stifling free speech in our universities, our workplaces, our public squares, and across social media. Social pressure is fine for your example but they’re stifling legitimate viewpoints on economics, the nuclear family, and a great number of other things that are perfectly reasonable. Then we can talk about a rise in authoritarianism.

You all go to great lengths to paint Trump and Republicans as the worst Kind of evil that has ever walked the Earth. Yet you ignore actual actions. You’ve screamed authoritarian for more than four years, but Trump has again and again shown that he won’t overreach. With immigration, which is an Executive power and not a judicial power, he abides by the court and resubmitted his order again and again and again. For COVID, rather than push an unconstitutional national lockdown, he deferred to the power of the states as he should’ve. COVID was the perfect excuse for an authoritarian power grab yet it was not Trump that used that opportunity.

Maybe you all should start looking inwards and see that the people actually acting on things that you’re so afraid of Trump doing are largely on the left side of the aisle.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
I hope you can see a little more nuance than that. If you are standing outside a burning house and decide to pour gasoline on the fire, you're clearly making things worse. That doesn't mean you bear full responsibility for setting the fire, and it doesn't mean your the only one pouring on gas - but there's simply no denying you are part of the problem.

When you're POTUS - everything is amplified. He's basically got a firehose of gasoline that dwarfs everyone else. And saying "yea but they're mean to me" is just not good enough.
I can see nuance. I can also read your posts that are nuance-free and laser-focused on only mentioning Trump as being the issue.
 

Crazyhole

Diamond Knight
Jun 4, 2004
14,200
7,139
113
Tell me when Trump used the US Government to lock up journalists for questioning him like his predecessor or a time where he said that he was going to write legislation through executive fiat, then did it and dared everyone to stop him, or how his followers are stifling free speech in our universities, our workplaces, our public squares, and across social media. Social pressure is fine for your example but they’re stifling legitimate viewpoints on economics, the nuclear family, and a great number of other things that are perfectly reasonable. Then we can talk about a rise in authoritarianism.

You all go to great lengths to paint Trump and Republicans as the worst Kind of evil that has ever walked the Earth. Yet you ignore actual actions. You’ve screamed authoritarian for more than four years, but Trump has again and again shown that he won’t overreach. With immigration, which is an Executive power and not a judicial power, he abides by the court and resubmitted his order again and again and again. For COVID, rather than push an unconstitutional national lockdown, he deferred to the power of the states as he should’ve. COVID was the perfect excuse for an authoritarian power grab yet it was Trump that used that opportunity.

Maybe you all should start looking inwards and see that the people actually acting on things that you’re so afraid of Trump doing are largely on the left side of the aisle.
You just summed up why I went from being a never trumper to a fan of his. Sure he had made mistakes and done things that I dont like, but he is the furthest thing from an authoritarian we've had since Coolidge.
 

sk8knight

Diamond Knight
Gold Member
Jun 23, 2001
12,027
8,524
113
You just summed up why I went from being a never trumper to a fan of his. Sure he had made mistakes and done things that I dont like, but he is the furthest thing from an authoritarian we've had since Coolidge.
Trump's biggest problem is his lack of filter. He lets everyone know what he's thinking all the time. It gets him in trouble constantly. But once all of his thoughts and ideas get distilled through the process to actual action, it is far more considered, measured, and appropriate than whatever he was rambling on about in some off-the-cuff discussion.

The fascinating thing is that America has always valued honesty and openness and got the cowboy reputation for just throwing their opinions out there. But now, for some reason, we want our leaders to keep their mouths shut and reveal nothing of their thoughts or intents beyond what has been focus-group finessed to evoke the required reaction. I would love to see how everyone would react if the rest of the politicians had their filters removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole

DaShuckster

Golden Knight
Nov 30, 2003
8,103
3,419
113
Trump's biggest problem is his lack of filter. He lets everyone know what he's thinking all the time. It gets him in trouble constantly. But once all of his thoughts and ideas get distilled through the process to actual action, it is far more considered, measured, and appropriate than whatever he was rambling on about in some off-the-cuff discussion.
You've GOT to be kidding!!! His large-scale campaign rallies with zero social distancing and few masks in high infection States is "considered, measured, and appropriate"?

The ironic thing is that he's violating HIS OWN Administration's coronavirus guidelines!!!