|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 11 2018 03:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 01:21 a_flayer wrote:On March 11 2018 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 11 2018 00:08 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2018 22:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:
By the way. Steve Bannon is talking at the annual conference of Marine Le Pen, Russia backed, xenophobic neo fascist Front National party.
So that there is no misunderstanding on who is standing with whom. I mean, CPAC. On March 10 2018 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Megyn Kelly is a terrible reporter. She looked good as the relatively principled conservative on Fox. MSNBC made a big oops when they nabbed her.  It's just interesting that the current administration is not aligned in any way anymore with normal, traditional european right wing parties. It's become the big brother of the xenophobic and populist european far right. Which by the way is backed and financed by the Kremlin. It's chilling. Heh, funny, I could have sworn that Americans are funding the far right in my country. Are they? Which americans? The french FN recognized the crimean invasion two days after being lent a huge amount of money by a small russian bank linked to the Kremlin. Talking of traitors...
David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, amongst others.
|
On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote:
EU, trade and Germany
I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic.
With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment. Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking
Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade  and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.'
This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it.
First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others.
We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think?
|
On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote:
EU, trade and Germany
I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic.
With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment. Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking
Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think?
Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things".
|
On March 11 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote:
EU, trade and Germany
I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic.
With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment. Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking
Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things".
I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists.
|
On March 11 2018 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote:
EU, trade and Germany
I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic.
With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment. Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking
Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things". I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists.
Wrong. You can be a fascist or a communist without murdering people or personally forcing them to death by starvation, since it's a political position. Organizing to riot and violently shut down lectures you disagree with on universities does come close though.
Calling them "literally mousolini" would be different. Nice try.
|
On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote:
EU, trade and Germany
I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic.
With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment. Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking
Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think?
Listen, you've just doubled down to prove the point I said. More succinctly stated:
On March 11 2018 03:08 Orome wrote:
Yeah let's not pretend that comparison is anything but monumentally stupid. The word literally may have lost much of its actual meaning, but come the fuck on.
He's absolutely right that ridicule is the appropriate response to something so monumentally stupid. Why do you persist to claim otherwise?
|
I don't even understand why anyone would compare Trump to Hitler. Hitler was a good public speaker and smart, as well as being much more evil and acting without restriction.
Trump isn't a dictator, he isn't genocidal etc.
He's just a reality TV star in over his head.
|
On March 11 2018 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't even understand why anyone would compare Trump to Hitler. Hitler was a good public speaker and smart, as well as being much more evil and acting without restriction.
Trump isn't a dictator, he isn't genocidal etc.
He's just a reality TV star in over his head.
there's several reasons; most notably because a lot of people are poorly informed idiots and make dumb comparisons rather than the numerous much better comparisons that exist because they don't know about them.
|
On March 11 2018 04:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote:
EU, trade and Germany
I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic.
With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment. Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking
Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Listen, you've just doubled down to prove the point I said. More succinctly stated: Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 03:08 Orome wrote:
Yeah let's not pretend that comparison is anything but monumentally stupid. The word literally may have lost much of its actual meaning, but come the fuck on. He's absolutely right that ridicule is the appropriate response to something so monumentally stupid. Why do you persist to claim otherwise?
I didn't even say it wasn't stupid. Why bother posting on a forum if you're knly going to discuss with imaginary versions of people?
|
United States43350 Posts
On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote:
EU, trade and Germany
I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic.
With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment. Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking
Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think?
If the phrase literally Hitler is taken at face value the speaker must think that the person is literally Adolf Hitler, having somehow escaped the fall of Berlin, found a cure for aging, implanted his youthful self into an unwitting family and plotted his return. It’s so absurd that nobody could, in good faith, assume the speaker literally meant literally Hitler. People who complain about the phrase are deliberately misunderstanding it and then building an argument rooted in that willful stupidity.
|
On March 11 2018 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
[quote]
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things". I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists. Wrong. You can be a fascist or a communist without murdering people or personally forcing them to death by starvation, since it's a political position. Organizing to riot and violently shut down lectures you disagree with on universities does come close though. Calling them "literally mousolini" would be different. Nice try.
So it's wrong to compare Trump and Hitler, but it's correct to compare SJWs and fascists?
|
On March 11 2018 04:37 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 04:18 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 16:32 Danglars wrote:On March 10 2018 15:51 dicey wrote:
EU, trade and Germany
I believe the biggest crisis is that of representation (as people, especially the new populist right, put it on the top of the agenda; in some parts rightfully so): A far bigger share of the member states' populations has become more politically uninvolved since 2008, and thus out-of-tune with their politicians. Politicians who in their turn had to face many more and increasingly complex issues in that same period. So then again they are in weaker positions to represent their country facing the EU. It's a facet of the old so-called democracy deficit problem, but on steroids: The member states need the EU more than ever to work out the glaring economic and social (judicial oversight e.g.) problems, but the EU cannot (and shouldn't) police the member states too strongly, in fear of seeming too authoritative, giving eurosceptics more of a platform on national sovereignty (challenging EU-representation yet again) and ultimately weakening the position of pro-EU politicians in their home societies. House of cards in a breeze... as austerity takes its toll visibly mostly outside of Germany, but also inside it, it's clear how the 'new movements' (Macron with En Marche and Cinque Stelle or even Germany's FDP) seem like a rather fresh alternative: But ultimately with not a strong enough mandate to fix the business-ism (in opposition to actual macro-economics) that has taken a hold of Europe after the austerity proposals (by "the elite" as well as Germany's conservatives, positioned for success before the Merkel II administration) managed to rally everyone in 2008-09. I don't see NATO making lots of headlines, an EU military would likely be the end of the EU for the above reasons. But calls for them are on-topic.
With all the insecurity from the Trump administration, Europe profits a lot -- for example even though quite a few economists proposed German exports will stagnate, they're still rising. Tax cuts in the US are kind of a one trick pony. Steel tariffs likely will get lower prices for steel in the EU: So the European cars Trump wants to challenge with import taxes if the EC decides to tariff motorcylces and jeans, will be... let's say net: just as affordable. All the while hurting the US both short and long-term... Isolationism anywhere else might at least have been good for the environment. Dead-on. Populists carry the message that the country's elites are governing in their own self-interest, and have plenty of reason to believe so in today's day and age. Of course, what serves the elites frequently is better for the country at large when compared to the stupidity of a typical populist's plan of reorganizing things.
45 thinking
Yeah right. Lean back and see how his mastermind will handle the summit with Kim Jong-Un. Two nuclear, stable geniuses at one table, what can go wrong? MSNBC (I believe) reported he agreed to it before even consulting with advisors/experts...
I was assured nuclear war over Trump's tweeting, and now Kim's making overtures (which, again, might be mostly nothing, but certainly are far from Trump ruining any chance of anything for the rest of the term). But, please, preconditions kthx. I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Listen, you've just doubled down to prove the point I said. More succinctly stated: On March 11 2018 03:08 Orome wrote:
Yeah let's not pretend that comparison is anything but monumentally stupid. The word literally may have lost much of its actual meaning, but come the fuck on. He's absolutely right that ridicule is the appropriate response to something so monumentally stupid. Why do you persist to claim otherwise? I didn't even say it wasn't stupid. Why bother posting on a forum if you're knly going to discuss with imaginary versions of people?
You criticized the guy that sent flippant ridicule his way instead of the one that wrote 'literally Hitler.' You're very much caught dead to rights here. So why persist? Seriously, why? I don't know what ensnares the kind of mind that descends to cautioning not to misunderstand 'literally Hitler.' Is it Trump or do you have a lot of friends that call people Hitler all the times and are wounded when their comments get misconstrued?
|
https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-department-files-regulation-ban-bump-stocks-143159866.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice formally submitted a regulation on Saturday to ban "bump stocks," a modification to high-capacity rifles that lets them fire like an automatic weapon.
President Donald Trump signed a memorandum in February directing the department to make the regulatory change, which must now be approved by the Office of Management and Budget before it is published and subject to a commentary period.
The move does not require congressional approval, allowing the administration to side-step what could have been insurmountable pressure from pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association that have worked to erode changes in firearm laws in the wake of mass shootings in Florida and Nevada.
The NRA supported more regulations on bump stocks but has not endorsed Trump's ban and said previously it was awaiting the publication of the regulation before rendering judgment.
The NRA could not immediately be reached for comment.
Shooter Stephen Paddock was in possession of a "bump stock" after a shooting rampage in Las Vegas in October 2017 that left 58 people dead and more than 850 injured.
|
On March 11 2018 04:26 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't even understand why anyone would compare Trump to Hitler. Hitler was a good public speaker and smart, as well as being much more evil and acting without restriction.
Trump isn't a dictator, he isn't genocidal etc.
He's just a reality TV star in over his head.
Not a dictator, but not by choice. He has officially stated several times that he wished he was, as well as admiring those who are for the sole purpose of being dictators. He isn't genocidal, but again it's not by choice. I can of course not claim that he would commit genocide if he got the choice but OH FUCKING WAIT HE'S LITERALLY DOING JUST THIS. Have people forgotten about Puerto Rico?! Or healthcare?! Or any of the other atrocious he's done in the name of putting money into his investor's pockets?
When we're comparing Trump to Hitler, we don't mean that Hitler has been hiding all these years, put on a bad wig and gained weight in order to become president of the US. We mean that the similarities are fucking shocking. Trump IS a good public speaker. Not for those of us who see right through him, no, but he has a very solid fanatical support base who eats everything he says. On top of this he is openly xenophobic, racist and discriminating, and he doesn't care if people die at all to get what he wants.
|
On March 11 2018 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:On March 10 2018 21:50 GoTuNk! wrote:[quote] I'm old enough to remember when Trump was gonna start WWIII over his twitter. Now we have a summit. I´m old enough to remember when Trump was literally Hitler, and then he gave unconditional support to Israel. I'm old enough to remember when liberales hated free trade, but now that Trump wants to put some tarriffs they are all free trade laissez-fare fanatics, makes me chuckle a bit. I read somewhere it was a matermind plan of Trump to troll leftists into defending free trade and later put no tarrifs. To be fair all conservatives should oppose tarrifs, but some seem to be for it now. The left in the U.S. is now simply an anti-trump party, always switching their narrative to oppose him. Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things". I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists. Wrong. You can be a fascist or a communist without murdering people or personally forcing them to death by starvation, since it's a political position. Organizing to riot and violently shut down lectures you disagree with on universities does come close though. Calling them "literally mousolini" would be different. Nice try. So it's wrong to compare Trump and Hitler, but it's correct to compare SJWs and fascists?
You can compare Trump to Hitler, but its pointless. He isn't like Hitler.
A much more interesting comparison is John I of England. He was petty and nasty, treated powerful barons with disrespect constantly, pissed everyone off, as well as having a ridiculously unhealthy diet. He did some stuff right, but failed alot too.
|
Just a month after Trump announced his campaign for the White House, he spoke directly to Maria Butina, the protégé of the powerful Russian banking official and Putin ally Alexander Torshin. During a public question and answer session at FreedomFest, a libertarian convention in Las Vegas in July 2015, Butina asked Trump what he would do as president about “damaging” US sanctions. Trump suggested he would get rid of them.
“I am visiting from Russia,” Butina said into the mic.
“Ahhhhh, Putin!” Trump interjected, prompting laughter from the audience as he added a mocking riff about the current president: “Good friend of Obama, Putin. He likes Obama a lot. Go ahead.”
“My question will be about foreign politics,” Butina continued. “If you will be elected as president, what will be your foreign politics especially in the relationships with my country? And do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that are damaging of both economy [sic]? Or you have any other ideas?”
After going off on Obama and digressing into trade policy, Trump responded: “I know Putin, and I’ll tell you what, we get along with Putin… I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin, OK? And I mean, where we have the strength. I don’t think you’d need the sanctions. I think we would get along very, very well.”
Trump did not appear to know who Butina was. But Torshin claims to have met Trump three months prior and had a “jovial exchange” with him at the NRA annual convention in Nashville.
motherjones.com
Donald Trump was so eager to have Vladimir Putin attend the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow that he wrote a personal letter to the Russian president inviting him to the event, according to multiple people familiar with the document.
At the bottom of the typed letter, Trump scrawled a postscript adding that he looked forward to seeing "beautiful" women during his trip.
Trump's letter to Putin, which was described by people with knowledge of its contents, shows how interested he was in attracting the personal attention of the Russian president. The real estate magnate, who owned the Miss Universe pageant, wrote the note at a time when he was looking to expand his brand to Russia.
The letter, the first known attempt at direct outreach by Trump to Putin, has been turned over to investigators probing Russia's interference in the 2016 campaign. It is unclear whether Trump's missive was ever delivered to the Russian president - and if so, whether Putin responded.
...
n a June 18, 2013, tweet, Trump wrote: "Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?"
His letter to Putin was written that month, according to the people familiar with the document.
...
Trump was approached by billionaire Moscow developer Aras Agalarov and his pop star son, Emin, who said they would pay to bring Miss Universe to the Russian capital.
...
In June 2016, a music promoter representing Emin Agalarov emailed one of Trump's sons, Donald Trump Jr., and asked if he would meet with a Russian lawyer who the promoter said could give him damaging information about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
...
In October 2013, a month before the Miss Universe pageant, he told late-night host David Letterman that Putin was a "tough guy" and that he had "met him once."
During a Republican primary debate in November 2015, Trump said that he knew Putin "very well."
But in July 2016, he told a CBS affiliate in Miami, "I have nothing to do with Russia, nothing to do, I never met Putin, I have nothing to do with Russia whatsoever."
By that time, Russia was widely suspected of stealing emails from the Democratic National Committee, which had been published by WikiLeaks.
www.chicagotribune.com
|
On March 11 2018 05:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:[quote] Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things". I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists. Wrong. You can be a fascist or a communist without murdering people or personally forcing them to death by starvation, since it's a political position. Organizing to riot and violently shut down lectures you disagree with on universities does come close though. Calling them "literally mousolini" would be different. Nice try. So it's wrong to compare Trump and Hitler, but it's correct to compare SJWs and fascists? You can compare Trump to Hitler, but its pointless. He isn't like Hitler. A much more interesting comparison is John I of England. He was petty and nasty, treated powerful barons with disrespect constantly, pissed everyone off, as well as having a ridiculously unhealthy diet. He did some stuff right, but failed alot too.
That's all fine but I'm much more interested in the fact that GoTunk thinks comparing Trump and Hitler is awful and evidence of idiocy but at the same time comparing SJWs and fascists is all the rage.
|
On March 11 2018 05:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 10 2018 21:56 Excludos wrote:[quote] Well first off..there's no summit. The WH is doing damage control right now because they decided not to do it after all the hype. And why was he being given credit for literally not having done anything in the first place? Korea wanted him to have a sitdown, and he *gasp* agreed...and then changed his mind. Like he does with everything constantly. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/the-white-house-is-already-walking-back-the-north-korea-deal-because-it-was-a-pr-stunt.htmlAnd yeah, I still think Trump is literally hitler. He's just not been given quite as free reigns as Hitler was. And twitter messages like "My nukes are bigger than yours" is literally shit that could start wars.. So even that point is moot. Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho. Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things". I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists. Wrong. You can be a fascist or a communist without murdering people or personally forcing them to death by starvation, since it's a political position. Organizing to riot and violently shut down lectures you disagree with on universities does come close though. Calling them "literally mousolini" would be different. Nice try. So it's wrong to compare Trump and Hitler, but it's correct to compare SJWs and fascists? You can compare Trump to Hitler, but its pointless. He isn't like Hitler. A much more interesting comparison is John I of England. He was petty and nasty, treated powerful barons with disrespect constantly, pissed everyone off, as well as having a ridiculously unhealthy diet. He did some stuff right, but failed alot too.
I personally blame small reference pools for the continual reference to Hitler. I wonder how much world history is taught in the US outside of WWI and WWII?
Maybe its just History Channels fault.
|
On March 11 2018 05:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 05:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 11 2018 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:On March 11 2018 03:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 11 2018 03:44 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 02:53 Danglars wrote:On March 11 2018 01:40 ChristianS wrote:On March 11 2018 01:22 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
Most likely the summit will not change the world (one can hope) but if you think Trump wants to build up concentration camps and round up and execute millions of blacks and jews you are simply a psycho.
Did someone say he would? Or did you just hear someone say he's "literally Hitler" and decide to make up for them what they meant by that?I can't say for sure, but I assume people mean they think he's a racist who maintains support using racially charged grievance politics and would prefer authoritarian rule if he could get it. I personally don't think the comparison to Hitler is all that apt - he's his own kind of terrible - but I think the people who are literally looking for the concentration camps are few and far between. Of course, the FEMA death camps conspiracy theory has been around for a while, so that crowd still exists, but that doesn't have much to do with Trump, does it? Only in today's era do the crazies have a class of almost-as-crazies finding nuance in the accusation of "literally Hitler." Just abandon any attempts to understand the current era if you're rationalizing away 'literally Hitler.' This is useless commentary. I'm not saying I agree with such people, I'm saying let's not accuse them of saying things they're not. Surely you've already given up on understanding the current era if you've decided not to bother trying to figure out what these people think and why they think it. First of all, the very phrase "literally Hitler" is almost always meant ironically (not unlike the phrase "history's greatest monster"), but let's forget that for a moment and assume they mean it mostly seriously. In what ways do you think they find Trump and Hitler similar? Do you think they believe that Hitler evaded capture all these years, donned an orange wig, and ran for president? If we took them at their word, that's the only way he could be "literally Hitler." Otherwise, they presumably come to the conclusion that he is similar to Hitler in some respects, while obviously being dissimilar in others. We've got people here in the forum who apparently think Trump is "literally Hitler." Why not ask them whether they believe he's setting up death camps for blacks and Jews before just assuming that's what they think? Because we are not idiots. If I call you someone "literally a genocidal maniac" it doesn't mean "someone who says mean things". I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists. Wrong. You can be a fascist or a communist without murdering people or personally forcing them to death by starvation, since it's a political position. Organizing to riot and violently shut down lectures you disagree with on universities does come close though. Calling them "literally mousolini" would be different. Nice try. So it's wrong to compare Trump and Hitler, but it's correct to compare SJWs and fascists? You can compare Trump to Hitler, but its pointless. He isn't like Hitler. A much more interesting comparison is John I of England. He was petty and nasty, treated powerful barons with disrespect constantly, pissed everyone off, as well as having a ridiculously unhealthy diet. He did some stuff right, but failed alot too. That's all fine but I'm much more interested in the fact that GoTunk thinks comparing Trump and Hitler is awful and evidence of idiocy but at the same time comparing SJWs and fascists is all the rage.
Both are guaranteed to stop a conversation from going anywhere that's for sure.
|
United States24750 Posts
On March 11 2018 03:17 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 02:49 micronesia wrote:Of some note, President Trump's second pardon was of Navy sailor Kristian Saucier, who took unauthorized photos inside classified sections of a nuclear powered submarine. Saucier's lawyer argue for leniency by comparing the defendent's crimes to that of Hillary Clinton in her mishandling of classified information a couple of years ago. Ultimately, Saucier completed his 12 month sentence before being pardoned, despite Trump discussing the possibility of pardoning him much sooner. The sentence length was probably driven more by Saucier's attempts to destroy the evidence than the initial offense of taking the photos. I really don't get why Trump wanted to pardon this guy so badly but at least he waited until after the sentence. Apparently, the guy has more job opportunities now and can lose the ankle bracelet which doesn't really bother me. http://time.com/5194347/trump-pardons-navy-sailor/ what's not to get? it seems like it's a straightforward case of "but her emails", so he's doing it to play to his base by using it as a talking point, as he has been doing for quite some time.
The talking point just doesn't make sense to me. I totally understand the tendency to circle back to "but her e-mails," but not pardoning someone for getting punished for mishandling classified information. Is the message that people shouldn't be expected to follow the law, or that if Hillary broke the law and got away with it then that means everyone else should be able to get away with it too? Neither of these statements seem like something the Trump administration would support. I guess it's just cursorily related to the Hillary e-mail "scandal" and so any opportunity to bring up "but her e-mails," even if it doesn't make logical sense, is still catering to the base, as you said. Which is nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
