US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1765

On March 26 2015 03:37 Nyxisto wrote:The 'armed population' logic relies on the assumption that this can actually never happen and that the majority of people is always at least decently reasonable.

On March 26 2015 03:42 puerk wrote:

+ courageus, steadfast, informed, trained, connected, motivated, efficient and morally conscious....

On March 26 2015 03:37 Nyxisto wrote:


Pretty much the only form of dissent originated from underground like movements, some Catholics, although even the church supported the NS regime locally in the beginning(think about how ridiculous this is). The overwhelming majority of the population was supportive or indifferent, there is no other way to explain how things could have happened on the scale they did. Jews were dragged to the streets, proclaimed to be race-traitors, lynched by hundreds of people. The gist of it is that yes, whole nations can go completely insane. Guns wouldn't have changed a thing. The 'armed population' logic relies on the assumption that this can actually never happen and that the majority of people is always at least decently reasonable.

On March 26 2015 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:
No, they really thought that what the Nazi regime did was the right thing to do. Just like White Americans, for decades or centuries, were convinced that black people don't deserve rights and could be owned . Kwark posted a graph some while ago that showed that like 5% of the American population supported 'interracial marriage' in the 50's. Were they all just scared? Nope, they just were incredibly racist, like pretty much everybody else in the first half of the twentieth century.

On March 26 2015 01:28 Millitron wrote:

The polls don't really tell the whole story though, because she's the only name the dems have right now, while the republicans have tons of possible choices. So, for now, the republican base is split among like 5 candidates while the dems only really have Hillary. Once the republican primaries are done, she won't have such a strong lead.

On March 26 2015 03:49 Nyxisto wrote:
No, they really thought that what the Nazi regime did was the right thing to do. Just like White Americans, for decades or centuries, were convinced that black people don't deserve rights and could be owned . Kwark posted a graph some while ago that showed that like 5% of the American population supported 'interracial marriage' in the 50's. Were they all just scared? Nope, they just were incredibly racist, like pretty much everybody else in the first half of the twentieth century.

On March 25 2015 20:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
seems like a pretty done deal that it's gonna be clinton.. bill's popularity has never been higher has it? he's gonna win it for her I feel.

On March 26 2015 01:28 Millitron wrote:

The polls don't really tell the whole story though, because she's the only name the dems have right now, while the republicans have tons of possible choices. So, for now, the republican base is split among like 5 candidates while the dems only really have Hillary. Once the republican primaries are done, she won't have such a strong lead.

On March 26 2015 01:39 SixStrings wrote:



That only works in Europe because not everyone has access to guns.

It's a trade-off, really. American cities are less safe, but at least they're not entirely at the mercy of their government or outside forces.

You can talk about how great gun control is all you want, but a government is far less likely to fuck with a society that is full of armed quasi-soldiers.

On March 26 2015 04:13 QuanticHawk wrote:

You are missing my point.

Yes, there were people who genuinely thought all that shit that went on was a-ok. The Nazi party also made it a point to actively stomp out opposition, political and individual, and did it in a way to intimidate anyone else into compliance.

My point is that state-sponsored violence against opposition tends to have a pretty profound effect on your views. Hence why I object to the very generalized statement of most Germans being for what happened. It's a shitty oversimplication of what happened.



I see it far from being a done deal. I know a ton of dems who hate her (I couldn't stand her myself and registered Dem after being independent for years just to vote against her in primaries... and I liked Obama more at the time).

The right hates her, she's pretty divisive among her own established base, she's about as politician as it gets (household name because of who she married and she hasn't found a vote she won't sell her soul for).

Coming off of 8 years of democrat rule, especially when Obama came in as a saint who could do no wrong and slid to a point where he has started to alienate some of his own core, I think the party could stand to pick a better candidate. It reminds me of when the Dems were facing a weak ass Bush after his first term, everyone hated him, and they trotted out fucking Kerry.

On March 26 2015 05:55 Acrofales wrote:


You do realize that most of the gangs going out to do the stomping weren't even under state control? They may have been doing it with the approval of the Nazi party, but they were basically militias. Exactly the kind that the US Constitution would have armed with guns instead of baseball bats.

On March 26 2015 06:10 Millitron wrote:

Except the Jews and other minorities would've been just as heavily armed. It wouldn't have been nearly so one-sided.

On March 26 2015 06:10 Millitron wrote:

Except the Jews and other minorities would've been just as heavily armed. It wouldn't have been nearly so one-sided.