|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Blitzkrieg0, I posted a political resource. I also did engage with people. I also didn't call anyone wrong.
Get your shit together -.-
Regarding the Soros post, given the reaction to my post, I saw that the discussion wasn't welcome and was not going to be productive, so I left. I did however reply to eri privately about his question, he can post the pms here if he wants i guess.
Happy?
|
On June 04 2020 00:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 00:20 ChristianS wrote:On June 04 2020 00:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On June 03 2020 23:57 travis wrote:
I should probably go again though, before I rile things up too much. Don't really enjoy being hated on, either. Can get rough. Your last post in this thread was posting conspiracy bullshit about Geogre Soros and then disappearing after people asked you for sources. If your contribution is going to be writing conspiracy theories and then disappearing just skip the first step. Idk, who’s he hurting? I don’t mind hearing how conspiracy theorists feel once in a while. Why run him out of town? IIRC TL has a standing policy forbidding conspiracy theories, but if they wanted to enforce it they might feel the need to dig into what he’s saying to determine it actually *is* a conspiracy theory. They’d probably get as far as I got into Behold a Pale Horse. Edit: enforce, not force I haven't seen Nettles post awhile, but I don't think he's banned. Do you believe he contributes to the thread by posting a conspiracy theory and then leaving without engaging in a discussion with anyone? I would argue no.
I think the discussions in this thread are as much about who reads them as it is who posts in them. Sometimes the victory is not in shutting down the person who's wrong, sometimes they just need the chance to show everyone how foolish a given argument really is. If Nettles wants to come back and make another half-baked argument he got from Faux News, he's welcome to. You know, unless it's racist or something. We're equally welcome to make people who post ridiculous Faux News arguments feel ridiculous.
|
On June 04 2020 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:
There was some brief talk about Flynn but there isn't much to say about it imo.
A morally bankrupt DoJ tries to drop a case against a friend of the President despite multiple confessions under oath. The judge in question isn't having any of it and as a response the Flynn team has made a bogus claim to the appellate court despite the law being entirely clear that the court has to agree to a dismissal.
Last I heard the appellate court asked Judge Sullivans for his opinion.
Anything happen since then that is worth discussing?
The judge hired Kavanaugh's lawyer to prosecute Flynn and has responded to the appellate court's request for a response. That's it so far.
The transcripts are innocuous outside of the fact that Flynn lied about their contents to Pence/Trump (supposedly) and the FBI (definitely)
edit:
Oral arguments have been set for june 12th
|
On June 04 2020 00:38 travis wrote:
Blitzkrieg0, I posted a political resource. I also did engage with people. I also didn't call anyone wrong.
Get your shit together -.-
This is the problem with not posting a position. What else am I supposed to assume from this post?
On June 04 2020 00:13 travis wrote:
That's an interesting take.
I identified this as sarcasm because it is exactly what I would say to someone who said something stupid.
On June 04 2020 00:13 travis wrote:
Did you read the actual transcripts?
Asking if someone read the actual transcripts implies they haven't read them already. You're implying their position is based on a secondary source rather than the actual transcripts.
Feel free to clarify your position.
|
Some time today there should be an announcement on charges being brought or not on three of the officers in the Floyd case. The family lawyer says he's confident there will be charges, so we'll see what they say.
|
On June 03 2020 22:33 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 22:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 21:29 thePunGun wrote:On June 03 2020 21:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 20:49 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 17:55 Simberto wrote:On June 03 2020 17:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 17:08 Uldridge wrote:
If puppykiller hasn't understood it yet: it's not about getting (white) allies on the (white) allies' terms. You get to talk from a perspective of comfort, many PoE don't.
I think South Park did a nice job in that one episode when Stan finally had to admit to Token that he didn't get it.
@GH: many people want to help but can't/won't leave their comfort zone because why would they, people are beings that don't just abandon those kind of positions (we're all selfish that way). How can those people help? That is to say, can they even do anything you consider as helping, in your opinion? Not kidding about white history week. I'd suggest people learn how centrists and social democrats were key to Hitler's rise to power. Then think about whether they want to get out of their comfort zone now or or later, unless they are comfortable being complicit. See sig. Trump's not Hitler and the US isn't Germany, but the clear path to fascism is in front of us (I say as watching a man pepper sprayed in his home for shouting at officers). What exactly are you referring to with "social democrats being key to Hitler's rise to power"? Because that does not fit anything i know about German history. In fact, the second he could, Hitler outlawed the SPD and imprisoned and/or killed as many of them as he could. Social democrats were the only party present who voted against the enabling act giving Hitler dictatorial power in '33, despite being surrounded by SA people. Long story short, while SPD and centrists were playing nice with the nazis banking on process and institutions, communists and antifa's early manifestations were outlawed and suppressed. When the economy collapsed and no one was able to offer adequate relief Hitler capitalized and his brownshirts suppressed the remaining resistance in the street. Hitler's appointed chancellor. Calls to dissolve the Reichstag, there's the famous fire. Hitler blames communists and has them all rounded up and many executed. With SPD being the farthest left party still legal/viable they failed to stop the Enabling Act giving Hitler legitimacy and then he has them arrested, banished, killed, etc anyway. A lot of that happened in the span of about 3 months btw EDIT: I feel like SPD KPD drama is both out of my depth and a bit in the weeds here. EDIT2: Honest question: Do people not know the "first they came for" quote starts with communists over there too? In the long UK version Jewish people are 4th/penultimate! A lot of socialdemocrats died trying to fight Hitler and intentionally put their lifes on the line to stop him/fight him. This is really insulting to all those people and terribly wrong and just speaks to how you either not know or bend history to fit your political agenda. It's almost trump-esque to say that they were the key to hitler's power because they died trying to prevent him but didn't succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble but I was also taught that s ocial democrats did help Hitler gain power. The way we were taught it happened was due to social democrats not wanting antifacist to gain more power since antifa was considered communist, and the Nazi party (who claimed they were socialist) along with socialist democrats both took part in having antifa lose power. Now I’m not saying socialist democrats didn’t try to stop it, but they did help solidify Nazis to gain more power over antifa. Well, if you're making false and inaccurate statements, you'll have to at least point to the source, which came up with this nonsense. Unless of course you've just pulled it out of your ass, because it sure as F smells like that. How about you teach me instead of talking out of your ass too? I said this was how it was taught to me, when? Idk it was like more than 15 years ago. Nothing online is going to prove my point, but there’s a few articles that state the SPD did nothing for a couple years, which led to the rise of Nazis... https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/choices-and-consequences
Unwilling to confront the challenge of dealing with the great depression the Social Democrats stayed out of the government. Their decision allowed the erosion of legislative government to take place in the period from 1930-1932 seriously weakening the Weimar Republic and contributing to its failure.
Am I wrong? Sure, but I was just stating that I learned that SPD also didn’t like communists, which aligned with early Nazi propaganda- against communist. Edit: I may also be mixing things up, but either way, if I’m wrong please just show me why I’m wrong it’s better than just telling me I’m wrong, I like learning. As I mentioned I’m just stating how I was taught in school, maybe this is why we have a fuck ton of Americans who think socialism is bad? While this is slightly off topic, if doing nothing is now considered as helping Hitler, the whole Europe helped him by not invading earlier. If I remember Rise&Fall of the Third Reich correctly, social democrats got pushed out of the government because the people felt (wrongly) that the gov had given up on the military during the first ww. If you add that to the great depression + the communist menace, you get people voting for Hitler. Feel free to correct me as it's been a long time.
Well, there was the "Dolchstoßlegende" (which basically said germany didn't militarily lose WW1 (although it was about to)), which was pushed by conservative/nationalist forces blaming the political enemy for a premature surrender. The main issue in my opinion was the versailles-treaty (which was both seen as an insult, but evenly important forced germany to pay insanely high reparations and concede economically relevant parts of it's land) combined with the economic challenges that came later during that time. That lead to very little options for the governing parties in terms of actually changing the situation and that lead to extremist parties like the KPD and the NSDAP rising. Both extremist parties actually targeted/fought the socialdemocrats the most, while Hitler claimed power with the support of the center-conservate party. While there are certainly errors within the strategy of the SPD, there was not much that could have been done to change anything. There was no lifting or changing the versailles-treaty via diplomacy and they were attacked from all sides. In terms of the KPD, I would really like to see why one would consider them even remotely useful in trying to prevent Hitler when they declared the only democratic party to be their main enemy.
|
On June 04 2020 00:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 00:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On June 03 2020 23:57 travis wrote:
I should probably go again though, before I rile things up too much. Don't really enjoy being hated on, either. Can get rough. Your last post in this thread was posting conspiracy bullshit about Geogre Soros and then disappearing after people asked you for sources. If your contribution is going to be writing conspiracy theories and then disappearing just skip the first step. Idk, who’s he hurting? I don’t mind hearing how conspiracy theorists feel once in a while. Why run him out of town? IIRC TL has a standing policy forbidding conspiracy theories, but if they wanted to enforce it they might feel the need to dig into what he’s saying to determine it actually *is* a conspiracy theory. They’d probably get as far as I got into Behold a Pale Horse. Edit: enforce, not force
It's kind of hard to ignore how much Soros conspiracy theories smell of the 1930's. They have all the tropes of old school antisemitism, and are created and propagated by the same kind of people and for the same reasons than 1930s conspiracy theories.
Maybe nothing should be off limit and we should welcome every opinion, no matter how toxic or stupid, but the whole Soros demonization is really up there.
|
On June 04 2020 01:13 MWY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2020 22:33 Erasme wrote:On June 03 2020 22:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 21:29 thePunGun wrote:On June 03 2020 21:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 20:49 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 17:55 Simberto wrote:On June 03 2020 17:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 17:08 Uldridge wrote:
If puppykiller hasn't understood it yet: it's not about getting (white) allies on the (white) allies' terms. You get to talk from a perspective of comfort, many PoE don't.
I think South Park did a nice job in that one episode when Stan finally had to admit to Token that he didn't get it.
@GH: many people want to help but can't/won't leave their comfort zone because why would they, people are beings that don't just abandon those kind of positions (we're all selfish that way). How can those people help? That is to say, can they even do anything you consider as helping, in your opinion? Not kidding about white history week. I'd suggest people learn how centrists and social democrats were key to Hitler's rise to power. Then think about whether they want to get out of their comfort zone now or or later, unless they are comfortable being complicit. See sig. Trump's not Hitler and the US isn't Germany, but the clear path to fascism is in front of us (I say as watching a man pepper sprayed in his home for shouting at officers). What exactly are you referring to with "social democrats being key to Hitler's rise to power"? Because that does not fit anything i know about German history. In fact, the second he could, Hitler outlawed the SPD and imprisoned and/or killed as many of them as he could. Social democrats were the only party present who voted against the enabling act giving Hitler dictatorial power in '33, despite being surrounded by SA people. Long story short, while SPD and centrists were playing nice with the nazis banking on process and institutions, communists and antifa's early manifestations were outlawed and suppressed. When the economy collapsed and no one was able to offer adequate relief Hitler capitalized and his brownshirts suppressed the remaining resistance in the street. Hitler's appointed chancellor. Calls to dissolve the Reichstag, there's the famous fire. Hitler blames communists and has them all rounded up and many executed. With SPD being the farthest left party still legal/viable they failed to stop the Enabling Act giving Hitler legitimacy and then he has them arrested, banished, killed, etc anyway. A lot of that happened in the span of about 3 months btw EDIT: I feel like SPD KPD drama is both out of my depth and a bit in the weeds here. EDIT2: Honest question: Do people not know the "first they came for" quote starts with communists over there too? In the long UK version Jewish people are 4th/penultimate! A lot of socialdemocrats died trying to fight Hitler and intentionally put their lifes on the line to stop him/fight him. This is really insulting to all those people and terribly wrong and just speaks to how you either not know or bend history to fit your political agenda. It's almost trump-esque to say that they were the key to hitler's power because they died trying to prevent him but didn't succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble but I was also taught that s ocial democrats did help Hitler gain power. The way we were taught it happened was due to social democrats not wanting antifacist to gain more power since antifa was considered communist, and the Nazi party (who claimed they were socialist) along with socialist democrats both took part in having antifa lose power. Now I’m not saying socialist democrats didn’t try to stop it, but they did help solidify Nazis to gain more power over antifa. Well, if you're making false and inaccurate statements, you'll have to at least point to the source, which came up with this nonsense. Unless of course you've just pulled it out of your ass, because it sure as F smells like that. How about you teach me instead of talking out of your ass too? I said this was how it was taught to me, when? Idk it was like more than 15 years ago. Nothing online is going to prove my point, but there’s a few articles that state the SPD did nothing for a couple years, which led to the rise of Nazis... https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/choices-and-consequences
Unwilling to confront the challenge of dealing with the great depression the Social Democrats stayed out of the government. Their decision allowed the erosion of legislative government to take place in the period from 1930-1932 seriously weakening the Weimar Republic and contributing to its failure.
Am I wrong? Sure, but I was just stating that I learned that SPD also didn’t like communists, which aligned with early Nazi propaganda- against communist. Edit: I may also be mixing things up, but either way, if I’m wrong please just show me why I’m wrong it’s better than just telling me I’m wrong, I like learning. As I mentioned I’m just stating how I was taught in school, maybe this is why we have a fuck ton of Americans who think socialism is bad? While this is slightly off topic, if doing nothing is now considered as helping Hitler, the whole Europe helped him by not invading earlier. If I remember Rise&Fall of the Third Reich correctly, social democrats got pushed out of the government because the people felt (wrongly) that the gov had given up on the military during the first ww. If you add that to the great depression + the communist menace, you get people voting for Hitler. Feel free to correct me as it's been a long time. Well, there was the "Dolchstoßlegende" (which basically said germany didn't militarily lose WW1 (although it was about to)), which was pushed by conservative/nationalist forces blaming the political enemy for a premature surrender. The main issue in my opinion was the versailles-treaty (which was both seen as an insult, but evenly important forced germany to pay insanely high reparations and concede economically relevant parts of it's land) combined with the economic challenges that came later during that time. That lead to very little options for the governing parties in terms of actually changing the situation and that lead to extremist parties like the KPD and the NSDAP rising. Both extremist parties actually targeted/fought the socialdemocrats the most, while Hitler claimed power with the support of the center-conservate party. While there are certainly errors within the strategy of the SPD, there was not much that could have been done to change anything. There was no lifting or changing the versailles-treaty via diplomacy and they were attacked from all sides. In terms of the KPD, I would really like to see why one would consider them even remotely useful in trying to prevent Hitler when they declared the only democratic party to be their main enemy.
Most would agree that the treaty of Versailles was wrong, one way or another. It should've been much heavier in my opinion as it would've squashed the question about losing the war and made Germany unable to do anything military side, much like today.
@travis
Why do you feel so strongly about a central unified government encompassing the earth ? To me it seems like the only way forward.
|
On June 04 2020 00:41 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:
There was some brief talk about Flynn but there isn't much to say about it imo.
A morally bankrupt DoJ tries to drop a case against a friend of the President despite multiple confessions under oath. The judge in question isn't having any of it and as a response the Flynn team has made a bogus claim to the appellate court despite the law being entirely clear that the court has to agree to a dismissal.
Last I heard the appellate court asked Judge Sullivans for his opinion.
Anything happen since then that is worth discussing? The judge hired Kavanaugh's lawyer to prosecute Flynn and has responded to the appellate court's request for a response. That's it so far. The transcripts are innocuous outside of the fact that Flynn lied about their contents to Pence/Trump (supposedly) and the FBI (definitely) edit: Oral arguments have been set for june 12th the transcripts are innocuous except for the fact that Flynn talked policy, and from everything I have seen he was not legally allowed to talk policy with representatives of foreign governments at the time.
And then he lied about it. Which he has confessed to, multiple times.
If it was all completely innocuous he didn't need to lie to the FBI about it.
|
On June 04 2020 01:29 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 01:13 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 22:33 Erasme wrote:On June 03 2020 22:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 21:29 thePunGun wrote:On June 03 2020 21:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 20:49 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 17:55 Simberto wrote:On June 03 2020 17:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Not kidding about white history week.
I'd suggest people learn how centrists and social democrats were key to Hitler's rise to power. Then think about whether they want to get out of their comfort zone now or or later, unless they are comfortable being complicit. See sig.
Trump's not Hitler and the US isn't Germany, but the clear path to fascism is in front of us (I say as watching a man pepper sprayed in his home for shouting at officers). What exactly are you referring to with "social democrats being key to Hitler's rise to power"? Because that does not fit anything i know about German history. In fact, the second he could, Hitler outlawed the SPD and imprisoned and/or killed as many of them as he could. Social democrats were the only party present who voted against the enabling act giving Hitler dictatorial power in '33, despite being surrounded by SA people. Long story short, while SPD and centrists were playing nice with the nazis banking on process and institutions, communists and antifa's early manifestations were outlawed and suppressed. When the economy collapsed and no one was able to offer adequate relief Hitler capitalized and his brownshirts suppressed the remaining resistance in the street. Hitler's appointed chancellor. Calls to dissolve the Reichstag, there's the famous fire. Hitler blames communists and has them all rounded up and many executed. With SPD being the farthest left party still legal/viable they failed to stop the Enabling Act giving Hitler legitimacy and then he has them arrested, banished, killed, etc anyway. A lot of that happened in the span of about 3 months btw EDIT: I feel like SPD KPD drama is both out of my depth and a bit in the weeds here. EDIT2: Honest question: Do people not know the "first they came for" quote starts with communists over there too? In the long UK version Jewish people are 4th/penultimate! A lot of socialdemocrats died trying to fight Hitler and intentionally put their lifes on the line to stop him/fight him. This is really insulting to all those people and terribly wrong and just speaks to how you either not know or bend history to fit your political agenda. It's almost trump-esque to say that they were the key to hitler's power because they died trying to prevent him but didn't succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble but I was also taught that s ocial democrats did help Hitler gain power. The way we were taught it happened was due to social democrats not wanting antifacist to gain more power since antifa was considered communist, and the Nazi party (who claimed they were socialist) along with socialist democrats both took part in having antifa lose power. Now I’m not saying socialist democrats didn’t try to stop it, but they did help solidify Nazis to gain more power over antifa. Well, if you're making false and inaccurate statements, you'll have to at least point to the source, which came up with this nonsense. Unless of course you've just pulled it out of your ass, because it sure as F smells like that. How about you teach me instead of talking out of your ass too? I said this was how it was taught to me, when? Idk it was like more than 15 years ago. Nothing online is going to prove my point, but there’s a few articles that state the SPD did nothing for a couple years, which led to the rise of Nazis... https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/choices-and-consequences
Unwilling to confront the challenge of dealing with the great depression the Social Democrats stayed out of the government. Their decision allowed the erosion of legislative government to take place in the period from 1930-1932 seriously weakening the Weimar Republic and contributing to its failure.
Am I wrong? Sure, but I was just stating that I learned that SPD also didn’t like communists, which aligned with early Nazi propaganda- against communist. Edit: I may also be mixing things up, but either way, if I’m wrong please just show me why I’m wrong it’s better than just telling me I’m wrong, I like learning. As I mentioned I’m just stating how I was taught in school, maybe this is why we have a fuck ton of Americans who think socialism is bad? While this is slightly off topic, if doing nothing is now considered as helping Hitler, the whole Europe helped him by not invading earlier. If I remember Rise&Fall of the Third Reich correctly, social democrats got pushed out of the government because the people felt (wrongly) that the gov had given up on the military during the first ww. If you add that to the great depression + the communist menace, you get people voting for Hitler. Feel free to correct me as it's been a long time. Well, there was the "Dolchstoßlegende" (which basically said germany didn't militarily lose WW1 (although it was about to)), which was pushed by conservative/nationalist forces blaming the political enemy for a premature surrender. The main issue in my opinion was the versailles-treaty (which was both seen as an insult, but evenly important forced germany to pay insanely high reparations and concede economically relevant parts of it's land) combined with the economic challenges that came later during that time. That lead to very little options for the governing parties in terms of actually changing the situation and that lead to extremist parties like the KPD and the NSDAP rising. Both extremist parties actually targeted/fought the socialdemocrats the most, while Hitler claimed power with the support of the center-conservate party. While there are certainly errors within the strategy of the SPD, there was not much that could have been done to change anything. There was no lifting or changing the versailles-treaty via diplomacy and they were attacked from all sides. In terms of the KPD, I would really like to see why one would consider them even remotely useful in trying to prevent Hitler when they declared the only democratic party to be their main enemy. Most would agree that the treaty of Versailles was wrong, one way or another. It should've been much heavier in my opinion as it would've squashed the question about losing the war and made Germany unable to do anything military side, much like today. @travis Why do you feel so strongly about a central unified government encompassing the earth ? To me it seems like the only way forward.
Most people feel that if theres a one world government you have nowhere to escape to if things go poorly. Imagine a situation where there are no refugees because theres literally no other government/countries to take them in. Same for political asylum seekers etc.
|
On June 04 2020 00:13 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 00:10 Gorsameth wrote:
There was some brief talk about Flynn but there isn't much to say about it imo.
A morally bankrupt DoJ tries to drop a case against a friend of the President despite multiple confessions under oath. The judge in question isn't having any of it and as a response the Flynn team has made a bogus claim to the appellate court despite the law being entirely clear that the court has to agree to a dismissal.
Last I heard the appellate court asked Judge Sullivans for his opinion.
Anything happen since then that is worth discussing? That's an interesting take. Did you read the actual transcripts? If its interesting I'm sure you can tell me which parts are wrong and give a reason as to why they are wrong.
|
On June 04 2020 01:38 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 01:29 Erasme wrote:On June 04 2020 01:13 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 22:33 Erasme wrote:On June 03 2020 22:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 21:29 thePunGun wrote:On June 03 2020 21:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 20:49 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2020 17:55 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
What exactly are you referring to with "social democrats being key to Hitler's rise to power"? Because that does not fit anything i know about German history. In fact, the second he could, Hitler outlawed the SPD and imprisoned and/or killed as many of them as he could.
Social democrats were the only party present who voted against the enabling act giving Hitler dictatorial power in '33, despite being surrounded by SA people. Long story short, while SPD and centrists were playing nice with the nazis banking on process and institutions, communists and antifa's early manifestations were outlawed and suppressed. When the economy collapsed and no one was able to offer adequate relief Hitler capitalized and his brownshirts suppressed the remaining resistance in the street. Hitler's appointed chancellor. Calls to dissolve the Reichstag, there's the famous fire. Hitler blames communists and has them all rounded up and many executed. With SPD being the farthest left party still legal/viable they failed to stop the Enabling Act giving Hitler legitimacy and then he has them arrested, banished, killed, etc anyway. A lot of that happened in the span of about 3 months btw EDIT: I feel like SPD KPD drama is both out of my depth and a bit in the weeds here. EDIT2: Honest question: Do people not know the "first they came for" quote starts with communists over there too? In the long UK version Jewish people are 4th/penultimate! A lot of socialdemocrats died trying to fight Hitler and intentionally put their lifes on the line to stop him/fight him. This is really insulting to all those people and terribly wrong and just speaks to how you either not know or bend history to fit your political agenda. It's almost trump-esque to say that they were the key to hitler's power because they died trying to prevent him but didn't succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble but I was also taught that s ocial democrats did help Hitler gain power. The way we were taught it happened was due to social democrats not wanting antifacist to gain more power since antifa was considered communist, and the Nazi party (who claimed they were socialist) along with socialist democrats both took part in having antifa lose power. Now I’m not saying socialist democrats didn’t try to stop it, but they did help solidify Nazis to gain more power over antifa. Well, if you're making false and inaccurate statements, you'll have to at least point to the source, which came up with this nonsense. Unless of course you've just pulled it out of your ass, because it sure as F smells like that. How about you teach me instead of talking out of your ass too? I said this was how it was taught to me, when? Idk it was like more than 15 years ago. Nothing online is going to prove my point, but there’s a few articles that state the SPD did nothing for a couple years, which led to the rise of Nazis... https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/choices-and-consequences
Unwilling to confront the challenge of dealing with the great depression the Social Democrats stayed out of the government. Their decision allowed the erosion of legislative government to take place in the period from 1930-1932 seriously weakening the Weimar Republic and contributing to its failure.
Am I wrong? Sure, but I was just stating that I learned that SPD also didn’t like communists, which aligned with early Nazi propaganda- against communist. Edit: I may also be mixing things up, but either way, if I’m wrong please just show me why I’m wrong it’s better than just telling me I’m wrong, I like learning. As I mentioned I’m just stating how I was taught in school, maybe this is why we have a fuck ton of Americans who think socialism is bad? While this is slightly off topic, if doing nothing is now considered as helping Hitler, the whole Europe helped him by not invading earlier. If I remember Rise&Fall of the Third Reich correctly, social democrats got pushed out of the government because the people felt (wrongly) that the gov had given up on the military during the first ww. If you add that to the great depression + the communist menace, you get people voting for Hitler. Feel free to correct me as it's been a long time. Well, there was the "Dolchstoßlegende" (which basically said germany didn't militarily lose WW1 (although it was about to)), which was pushed by conservative/nationalist forces blaming the political enemy for a premature surrender. The main issue in my opinion was the versailles-treaty (which was both seen as an insult, but evenly important forced germany to pay insanely high reparations and concede economically relevant parts of it's land) combined with the economic challenges that came later during that time. That lead to very little options for the governing parties in terms of actually changing the situation and that lead to extremist parties like the KPD and the NSDAP rising. Both extremist parties actually targeted/fought the socialdemocrats the most, while Hitler claimed power with the support of the center-conservate party. While there are certainly errors within the strategy of the SPD, there was not much that could have been done to change anything. There was no lifting or changing the versailles-treaty via diplomacy and they were attacked from all sides. In terms of the KPD, I would really like to see why one would consider them even remotely useful in trying to prevent Hitler when they declared the only democratic party to be their main enemy. Most would agree that the treaty of Versailles was wrong, one way or another. It should've been much heavier in my opinion as it would've squashed the question about losing the war and made Germany unable to do anything military side, much like today. @travis Why do you feel so strongly about a central unified government encompassing the earth ? To me it seems like the only way forward. Most people feel that if theres a one world government you have nowhere to escape to if things go poorly. Imagine a situation where there are no refugees because theres literally no other government/countries to take them in. Same for political asylum seekers etc.
Yes, because right now, we're all about taking every refugees and politcal asylum seekers.
From a purely objective PoV, the faster we're unified, the further we're going to go.
|
On June 04 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 00:20 ChristianS wrote:On June 04 2020 00:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On June 03 2020 23:57 travis wrote:
I should probably go again though, before I rile things up too much. Don't really enjoy being hated on, either. Can get rough. Your last post in this thread was posting conspiracy bullshit about Geogre Soros and then disappearing after people asked you for sources. If your contribution is going to be writing conspiracy theories and then disappearing just skip the first step. Idk, who’s he hurting? I don’t mind hearing how conspiracy theorists feel once in a while. Why run him out of town? IIRC TL has a standing policy forbidding conspiracy theories, but if they wanted to enforce it they might feel the need to dig into what he’s saying to determine it actually *is* a conspiracy theory. They’d probably get as far as I got into Behold a Pale Horse. Edit: enforce, not force It's kind of hard to ignore how much Soros conspiracy theories smell of the 1930's. They have all the tropes of old school antisemitism, and are created and propagated by the same kind of people and for the same reasons than 1930s conspiracy theories. Maybe nothing should be off limit and we should welcome every opinion, no matter how toxic or stupid, but the whole Soros demonization is really up there.
Admittedly starting with Soros is a bad look. Maybe this is naive, but I really think this isn’t an anti-Semitism thing though. I think travis’s fear of globalists is actually about *globalists* in a literal sense, not its use as the alt-right’s boogeyman or as codeword for Jews. He may prove me wrong yet, though.
|
On June 04 2020 02:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 00:20 ChristianS wrote:On June 04 2020 00:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On June 03 2020 23:57 travis wrote:
I should probably go again though, before I rile things up too much. Don't really enjoy being hated on, either. Can get rough. Your last post in this thread was posting conspiracy bullshit about Geogre Soros and then disappearing after people asked you for sources. If your contribution is going to be writing conspiracy theories and then disappearing just skip the first step. Idk, who’s he hurting? I don’t mind hearing how conspiracy theorists feel once in a while. Why run him out of town? IIRC TL has a standing policy forbidding conspiracy theories, but if they wanted to enforce it they might feel the need to dig into what he’s saying to determine it actually *is* a conspiracy theory. They’d probably get as far as I got into Behold a Pale Horse. Edit: enforce, not force It's kind of hard to ignore how much Soros conspiracy theories smell of the 1930's. They have all the tropes of old school antisemitism, and are created and propagated by the same kind of people and for the same reasons than 1930s conspiracy theories. Maybe nothing should be off limit and we should welcome every opinion, no matter how toxic or stupid, but the whole Soros demonization is really up there. Admittedly starting with Soros is a bad look. Maybe this is naive, but I really think this isn’t an anti-Semitism thing though. I think travis’s fear of globalists is actually about *globalists* in a literal sense, not its use as the alt-right’s boogeyman or as codeword for Jews. He may prove me wrong yet, though.
The problem is the language of conspiracy theories was exchanged with the language of antisemitism and now fairly harmless people are constantly accused of really bad things.
I will always stick up for conspiracy theories if they seem based in factual information that isn't easily available. Its hard to discern the crazy from the actually happening but there's been plenty of example of David Icke being exactly right about stuff - even though he's nuts - because he works hard to research stuff so occasionally something good comes of it.
The offhand dismissal of anything that sounds conspiracy-like is much more dangerous than a conspiracy theory.
|
The offhand dismissal of anything that sounds conspiracy-like is called common sense. After hearing so much bullshit you tend to skip the "oh maybe they're right, i have to do my research" part. Which is common sense.
|
I'm all for discussing conspiracy theories as long as you put in the work and post some sources, dubious as they may be, or flesh out your thought process in reaching said position. But when you just repeat the word 'research' several times then go in victim mode, subject aside, that's plain old shitposting.
|
On June 04 2020 01:44 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 01:38 Sadist wrote:On June 04 2020 01:29 Erasme wrote:On June 04 2020 01:13 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 22:33 Erasme wrote:On June 03 2020 22:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 21:29 thePunGun wrote:On June 03 2020 21:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 20:49 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Long story short, while SPD and centrists were playing nice with the nazis banking on process and institutions, communists and antifa's early manifestations were outlawed and suppressed. When the economy collapsed and no one was able to offer adequate relief Hitler capitalized and his brownshirts suppressed the remaining resistance in the street.
Hitler's appointed chancellor. Calls to dissolve the Reichstag, there's the famous fire. Hitler blames communists and has them all rounded up and many executed. With SPD being the farthest left party still legal/viable they failed to stop the Enabling Act giving Hitler legitimacy and then he has them arrested, banished, killed, etc anyway.
A lot of that happened in the span of about 3 months btw
EDIT: I feel like SPD KPD drama is both out of my depth and a bit in the weeds here.
EDIT2: Honest question: Do people not know the "first they came for" quote starts with communists over there too? In the long UK version Jewish people are 4th/penultimate! A lot of socialdemocrats died trying to fight Hitler and intentionally put their lifes on the line to stop him/fight him. This is really insulting to all those people and terribly wrong and just speaks to how you either not know or bend history to fit your political agenda. It's almost trump-esque to say that they were the key to hitler's power because they died trying to prevent him but didn't succeed. Sorry to burst your bubble but I was also taught that s ocial democrats did help Hitler gain power. The way we were taught it happened was due to social democrats not wanting antifacist to gain more power since antifa was considered communist, and the Nazi party (who claimed they were socialist) along with socialist democrats both took part in having antifa lose power. Now I’m not saying socialist democrats didn’t try to stop it, but they did help solidify Nazis to gain more power over antifa. Well, if you're making false and inaccurate statements, you'll have to at least point to the source, which came up with this nonsense. Unless of course you've just pulled it out of your ass, because it sure as F smells like that. How about you teach me instead of talking out of your ass too? I said this was how it was taught to me, when? Idk it was like more than 15 years ago. Nothing online is going to prove my point, but there’s a few articles that state the SPD did nothing for a couple years, which led to the rise of Nazis... https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/choices-and-consequences
Unwilling to confront the challenge of dealing with the great depression the Social Democrats stayed out of the government. Their decision allowed the erosion of legislative government to take place in the period from 1930-1932 seriously weakening the Weimar Republic and contributing to its failure.
Am I wrong? Sure, but I was just stating that I learned that SPD also didn’t like communists, which aligned with early Nazi propaganda- against communist. Edit: I may also be mixing things up, but either way, if I’m wrong please just show me why I’m wrong it’s better than just telling me I’m wrong, I like learning. As I mentioned I’m just stating how I was taught in school, maybe this is why we have a fuck ton of Americans who think socialism is bad? While this is slightly off topic, if doing nothing is now considered as helping Hitler, the whole Europe helped him by not invading earlier. If I remember Rise&Fall of the Third Reich correctly, social democrats got pushed out of the government because the people felt (wrongly) that the gov had given up on the military during the first ww. If you add that to the great depression + the communist menace, you get people voting for Hitler. Feel free to correct me as it's been a long time. Well, there was the "Dolchstoßlegende" (which basically said germany didn't militarily lose WW1 (although it was about to)), which was pushed by conservative/nationalist forces blaming the political enemy for a premature surrender. The main issue in my opinion was the versailles-treaty (which was both seen as an insult, but evenly important forced germany to pay insanely high reparations and concede economically relevant parts of it's land) combined with the economic challenges that came later during that time. That lead to very little options for the governing parties in terms of actually changing the situation and that lead to extremist parties like the KPD and the NSDAP rising. Both extremist parties actually targeted/fought the socialdemocrats the most, while Hitler claimed power with the support of the center-conservate party. While there are certainly errors within the strategy of the SPD, there was not much that could have been done to change anything. There was no lifting or changing the versailles-treaty via diplomacy and they were attacked from all sides. In terms of the KPD, I would really like to see why one would consider them even remotely useful in trying to prevent Hitler when they declared the only democratic party to be their main enemy. Most would agree that the treaty of Versailles was wrong, one way or another. It should've been much heavier in my opinion as it would've squashed the question about losing the war and made Germany unable to do anything military side, much like today. @travis Why do you feel so strongly about a central unified government encompassing the earth ? To me it seems like the only way forward. Most people feel that if theres a one world government you have nowhere to escape to if things go poorly. Imagine a situation where there are no refugees because theres literally no other government/countries to take them in. Same for political asylum seekers etc. Yes, because right now, we're all about taking every refugees and politcal asylum seekers. From a purely objective PoV, the faster we're unified, the further we're going to go.
Yes? Do you think that people from Niger, the US, Pakistan, Sweden and Japan would agree on the same laws and the same leaders?
I'd buy a truck of popcorn watching the debates in the super parliament, really.
|
On June 04 2020 02:10 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 00:20 ChristianS wrote:On June 04 2020 00:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On June 03 2020 23:57 travis wrote:
I should probably go again though, before I rile things up too much. Don't really enjoy being hated on, either. Can get rough. Your last post in this thread was posting conspiracy bullshit about Geogre Soros and then disappearing after people asked you for sources. If your contribution is going to be writing conspiracy theories and then disappearing just skip the first step. Idk, who’s he hurting? I don’t mind hearing how conspiracy theorists feel once in a while. Why run him out of town? IIRC TL has a standing policy forbidding conspiracy theories, but if they wanted to enforce it they might feel the need to dig into what he’s saying to determine it actually *is* a conspiracy theory. They’d probably get as far as I got into Behold a Pale Horse. Edit: enforce, not force It's kind of hard to ignore how much Soros conspiracy theories smell of the 1930's. They have all the tropes of old school antisemitism, and are created and propagated by the same kind of people and for the same reasons than 1930s conspiracy theories. Maybe nothing should be off limit and we should welcome every opinion, no matter how toxic or stupid, but the whole Soros demonization is really up there. Admittedly starting with Soros is a bad look. Maybe this is naive, but I really think this isn’t an anti-Semitism thing though. I think travis’s fear of globalists is actually about *globalists* in a literal sense, not its use as the alt-right’s boogeyman or as codeword for Jews. He may prove me wrong yet, though.
The Soros bs started in his native hungary by a campaign with an extremely antisemitic undertone by the far right of Viktor Orban. Then it caught up with the alt right because it was dumb and stinky and that's what they do.
But basically, yeah, the capitalist, cosmopolitan, unrooted jew pulling the threads of an international conspiracy to threaten the racial purity of his homeland. That's the idea.
|
On June 04 2020 02:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 02:10 ChristianS wrote:On June 04 2020 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 04 2020 00:20 ChristianS wrote:On June 04 2020 00:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On June 03 2020 23:57 travis wrote:
I should probably go again though, before I rile things up too much. Don't really enjoy being hated on, either. Can get rough. Your last post in this thread was posting conspiracy bullshit about Geogre Soros and then disappearing after people asked you for sources. If your contribution is going to be writing conspiracy theories and then disappearing just skip the first step. Idk, who’s he hurting? I don’t mind hearing how conspiracy theorists feel once in a while. Why run him out of town? IIRC TL has a standing policy forbidding conspiracy theories, but if they wanted to enforce it they might feel the need to dig into what he’s saying to determine it actually *is* a conspiracy theory. They’d probably get as far as I got into Behold a Pale Horse. Edit: enforce, not force It's kind of hard to ignore how much Soros conspiracy theories smell of the 1930's. They have all the tropes of old school antisemitism, and are created and propagated by the same kind of people and for the same reasons than 1930s conspiracy theories. Maybe nothing should be off limit and we should welcome every opinion, no matter how toxic or stupid, but the whole Soros demonization is really up there. Admittedly starting with Soros is a bad look. Maybe this is naive, but I really think this isn’t an anti-Semitism thing though. I think travis’s fear of globalists is actually about *globalists* in a literal sense, not its use as the alt-right’s boogeyman or as codeword for Jews. He may prove me wrong yet, though. The Soros bs started in his native hungary by a campaign with an extremely antisemitic undertone by the far right of Viktor Orban. Then it caught up with the alt right because it was dumb and stinky and that's what they do. But basically, yeah, the capitalist, cosmopolitan, unrooted jew pulling the threads of an international conspiracy to threaten the racial purity of his homeland. That's the idea.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, the general fixation on Soros among conspiracy theorists is absolutely an anti-Semitism thing. I’m just saying I don’t think it is for travis.
It’s weird, I normally have less patience for conspiracy theorists than most. I guess in the modern age of Alex Jones-type conspiracy theories (virulent, damaging and often insincere) I find old-fashioned Bill Cooper “New World Order” stuff refreshing.
|
On June 04 2020 02:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2020 01:44 Erasme wrote:On June 04 2020 01:38 Sadist wrote:On June 04 2020 01:29 Erasme wrote:On June 04 2020 01:13 MWY wrote:On June 03 2020 22:33 Erasme wrote:On June 03 2020 22:01 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 21:29 thePunGun wrote:On June 03 2020 21:21 ShoCkeyy wrote:On June 03 2020 20:49 MWY wrote:
[quote]
A lot of socialdemocrats died trying to fight Hitler and intentionally put their lifes on the line to stop him/fight him. This is really insulting to all those people and terribly wrong and just speaks to how you either not know or bend history to fit your political agenda. It's almost trump-esque to say that they were the key to hitler's power because they died trying to prevent him but didn't succeed.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I was also taught that s ocial democrats did help Hitler gain power. The way we were taught it happened was due to social democrats not wanting antifacist to gain more power since antifa was considered communist, and the Nazi party (who claimed they were socialist) along with socialist democrats both took part in having antifa lose power. Now I’m not saying socialist democrats didn’t try to stop it, but they did help solidify Nazis to gain more power over antifa. Well, if you're making false and inaccurate statements, you'll have to at least point to the source, which came up with this nonsense. Unless of course you've just pulled it out of your ass, because it sure as F smells like that. How about you teach me instead of talking out of your ass too? I said this was how it was taught to me, when? Idk it was like more than 15 years ago. Nothing online is going to prove my point, but there’s a few articles that state the SPD did nothing for a couple years, which led to the rise of Nazis... https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/choices-and-consequences
Unwilling to confront the challenge of dealing with the great depression the Social Democrats stayed out of the government. Their decision allowed the erosion of legislative government to take place in the period from 1930-1932 seriously weakening the Weimar Republic and contributing to its failure.
Am I wrong? Sure, but I was just stating that I learned that SPD also didn’t like communists, which aligned with early Nazi propaganda- against communist. Edit: I may also be mixing things up, but either way, if I’m wrong please just show me why I’m wrong it’s better than just telling me I’m wrong, I like learning. As I mentioned I’m just stating how I was taught in school, maybe this is why we have a fuck ton of Americans who think socialism is bad? While this is slightly off topic, if doing nothing is now considered as helping Hitler, the whole Europe helped him by not invading earlier. If I remember Rise&Fall of the Third Reich correctly, social democrats got pushed out of the government because the people felt (wrongly) that the gov had given up on the military during the first ww. If you add that to the great depression + the communist menace, you get people voting for Hitler. Feel free to correct me as it's been a long time. Well, there was the "Dolchstoßlegende" (which basically said germany didn't militarily lose WW1 (although it was about to)), which was pushed by conservative/nationalist forces blaming the political enemy for a premature surrender. The main issue in my opinion was the versailles-treaty (which was both seen as an insult, but evenly important forced germany to pay insanely high reparations and concede economically relevant parts of it's land) combined with the economic challenges that came later during that time. That lead to very little options for the governing parties in terms of actually changing the situation and that lead to extremist parties like the KPD and the NSDAP rising. Both extremist parties actually targeted/fought the socialdemocrats the most, while Hitler claimed power with the support of the center-conservate party. While there are certainly errors within the strategy of the SPD, there was not much that could have been done to change anything. There was no lifting or changing the versailles-treaty via diplomacy and they were attacked from all sides. In terms of the KPD, I would really like to see why one would consider them even remotely useful in trying to prevent Hitler when they declared the only democratic party to be their main enemy. Most would agree that the treaty of Versailles was wrong, one way or another. It should've been much heavier in my opinion as it would've squashed the question about losing the war and made Germany unable to do anything military side, much like today. @travis Why do you feel so strongly about a central unified government encompassing the earth ? To me it seems like the only way forward. Most people feel that if theres a one world government you have nowhere to escape to if things go poorly. Imagine a situation where there are no refugees because theres literally no other government/countries to take them in. Same for political asylum seekers etc. Yes, because right now, we're all about taking every refugees and politcal asylum seekers. From a purely objective PoV, the faster we're unified, the further we're going to go. Yes? Do you think that people from Niger, the US, Pakistan, Sweden and Japan would agree on the same laws and the same leaders? I'd buy a truck of popcorn watching the debates in the super parliament, really.
I didn't say it was realizable now, or even in a close future. However it doesn't take a genius to understand that there is a lot of redundant process if you take every countries in account. Or that an unified planetary government would propell the human race further and faster. But sure let's all sit in our political squabbles til the end of times and hope nothing better ever happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
32621
27245
22265
EPT
