EPTOn March 13 2025 01:57 WombaT wrote:
A sentiment colostomy bag would be less full of shit, why bother?
Show nested quote +
On March 13 2025 01:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Oh no. No, no, no. lmao.
Vance called Trump "America's Hitler" back in 2016. You assert that Vance no longer believes that, but has Vance ever explained why he used to believe that? Why did Vance think Trump was analogous to Hitler, back in 2016?
On March 13 2025 01:27 oBlade wrote:
Nope, I am saying that he criticized him in the past. You need to just look up the videos of him criticizing Trump as apparently you haven't seen them. It was not a simple appellation, and it was not laudatory.
The rest of that is you going your own way. It was quite a simple counterexample to the postulation that Republicans never criticize Blumpf! The criticism doesn't then undo or reverse itself just because someone criticizes Trump and then continues their existence, instead of instantly resigning and donating their net worth to the DNC and endorsing Democrats for everything. This is also true of Rubio's criticisms, of Graham's, of Kennedy's (figure out which), and so on. This is how time works and is obvious in any other field. For example, if you get a papercut, and your finger heals, it doesn't mean you never got a papercut, and it doesn't mean the papercut was actually a special healing spell the whole time.
You failed to answer a basic question again, appear to think being blonde is more Nazi than genociding millions of people, and haven't kept up with the last few months of news to realize Vance already thought Vance was wrong.
On March 13 2025 01:15 KwarK wrote:
Buddy, you're claiming that the guy carrying out "Hitler"'s bidding has an issue with "Hitler" and his policies. I'm pointing out that he literally doesn't in a way that is obvious to anyone. I mean for fucks sake man, Goering called Hitler Hitler, that doesn't make him a member of antifa.
If he's doing the things that "Hitler" wants him to do then you can't claim that calling him "Hitler" is somehow opposition.
On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:
Did you never encounter a primary source of Vance directly criticizing Trump before 2024? Like take 2 minutes and listen to him criticize Trump plain as day? Like me typing this now is the first you heard of it, and as a Republican you just myopically assume Republicans calling each other Hitler is a compliment?
On March 13 2025 00:33 KwarK wrote:
The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not.
I don't even understand how you're making the argument you're making with a straight face, you know that Vance is on the same team as Trump and yet you're presenting him as a dignified and principled opponent who rightly identifies Trump as a fascist with the implication that he has a problem with Trump's fascism. Even though you know that he doesn't. Even though you know that implication is contrary to the basic foundational knowledge of who Vance is and what his role is.
The whole German Nazi party called literally Hitler Hitler. Calling someone Hitler doesn't count as criticism if you're on the pro-Hitler team.
On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote:
The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data.
The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data.
The current VP is serving "Hitler: loyally. Your mistake is in thinking Hitler is a criticism when a Republican says it. It is not.
I don't even understand how you're making the argument you're making with a straight face, you know that Vance is on the same team as Trump and yet you're presenting him as a dignified and principled opponent who rightly identifies Trump as a fascist with the implication that he has a problem with Trump's fascism. Even though you know that he doesn't. Even though you know that implication is contrary to the basic foundational knowledge of who Vance is and what his role is.
The whole German Nazi party called literally Hitler Hitler. Calling someone Hitler doesn't count as criticism if you're on the pro-Hitler team.
Did you never encounter a primary source of Vance directly criticizing Trump before 2024? Like take 2 minutes and listen to him criticize Trump plain as day? Like me typing this now is the first you heard of it, and as a Republican you just myopically assume Republicans calling each other Hitler is a compliment?
Buddy, you're claiming that the guy carrying out "Hitler"'s bidding has an issue with "Hitler" and his policies. I'm pointing out that he literally doesn't in a way that is obvious to anyone. I mean for fucks sake man, Goering called Hitler Hitler, that doesn't make him a member of antifa.
If he's doing the things that "Hitler" wants him to do then you can't claim that calling him "Hitler" is somehow opposition.
Nope, I am saying that he criticized him in the past. You need to just look up the videos of him criticizing Trump as apparently you haven't seen them. It was not a simple appellation, and it was not laudatory.
The rest of that is you going your own way. It was quite a simple counterexample to the postulation that Republicans never criticize Blumpf! The criticism doesn't then undo or reverse itself just because someone criticizes Trump and then continues their existence, instead of instantly resigning and donating their net worth to the DNC and endorsing Democrats for everything. This is also true of Rubio's criticisms, of Graham's, of Kennedy's (figure out which), and so on. This is how time works and is obvious in any other field. For example, if you get a papercut, and your finger heals, it doesn't mean you never got a papercut, and it doesn't mean the papercut was actually a special healing spell the whole time.
On March 13 2025 01:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
The whole "superior race / blonde hair, blue eyes" Aryan / Nazi perspective, despite Hitler not fitting that profile perfectly. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with it, given your political proclivities. Here's a little more reading on the topic:
"Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, argued that the Germans was superior to all other races. Hitler became obsessed with 'racial purity' and used the word 'Aryan' to describe his idea of a 'pure German race' or Herrenvolk. The 'Aryan race' had a duty to control the world.
The Nazis believed that the Aryans had the most "pure blood" of all the people on earth. The ideal Aryan had pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes.
Non-Aryans came to be seen as impure and even evil. Hitler believed that Aryan superiority was being threatened particularly by the Jews. Therefore, a hierarchy of 'races' was created with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation."
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/how-did-nazis-construct-aryan-identity
"The Aryan race is a pseudoscientific historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping.[1][2] The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". Anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept.[3][4]
The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were distinct progenitors of a superior specimen of humankind,[5][6] and that their descendants up to the present day constitute either a distinctive race or a sub-race of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race and the Hamitic race.[7][8] This taxonomic approach to categorizing human population groups is now considered to be misguided and biologically meaningless due to the close genetic similarity and complex interrelationships between these groups.[9][10][11]
The term was adopted by various racist and antisemitic writers during the 19th century, including Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain,[12] whose scientific racism influenced later Nazi racial ideology.[13] By the 1930s, the concept had been associated with both Nazism and Nordicism,[14] and used to support the white supremacist ideology of Aryanism that portrayed the Aryan race as a "master race",[15] with non-Aryans regarded as racially inferior (Untermensch, lit. 'subhuman') and an existential threat that was to be exterminated.[16] In Nazi Germany, these ideas formed an essential part of the state ideology that led to the Holocaust.[17][18]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race
re: "Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews"
You're the one who brought up how Vance called Trump "Hitler". If you think Vance is wrong, simply because Trump hasn't successfully performed another Holocaust, then feel free to take it up with Vance.
+ Show Spoiler +
On March 13 2025 01:07 oBlade wrote:
What does being blonde have to do with anything? I'm not sure the implication of gatekeeping Nazis by saying Hitler wasn't a true Nazi because of his hair is a meaningful path to go down. But what do you personally believe is the most significant difference between Trump and Hitler: Their hair colors, Trump's larger number of Jewish people in his circle, or Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews?
Show nested quote +
On March 13 2025 00:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news.
Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat.
On March 13 2025 00:39 oBlade wrote:
People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary.
On March 13 2025 00:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism.
On March 13 2025 00:14 oBlade wrote:
The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data.
The current VP called Trump Hitler. The notion that "Republicans" or "conservatives" somehow do not criticize Trump, either at the level of elected or the level of voters - just because Person X doesn't criticize Trump about Issue Y in the exact way one of us personally expects that they should - is not a gripe that has a strong signal in the data.
Calling Trump "Hitler" is a criticism in the eyes of most people, but a badge of honor to his most fervent voters. That's why they do Nazi salutes and push for white nationalism.
People who do Nazi salutes do not most fervently support someone who surrounds himself with Jewish advisors and unconditionally supports the state of Israel. Go look for what they say and write. This is imaginary.
Speakers and MAGA audience members literally give Nazi salutes at Trump rallies, but maybe you haven't been keeping up with the past few months of news.
Hitler wasn't blonde and Trump has a few Jewish buddies. Neat.
What does being blonde have to do with anything? I'm not sure the implication of gatekeeping Nazis by saying Hitler wasn't a true Nazi because of his hair is a meaningful path to go down. But what do you personally believe is the most significant difference between Trump and Hitler: Their hair colors, Trump's larger number of Jewish people in his circle, or Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews?
The whole "superior race / blonde hair, blue eyes" Aryan / Nazi perspective, despite Hitler not fitting that profile perfectly. I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with it, given your political proclivities. Here's a little more reading on the topic:
"Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi Party, argued that the Germans was superior to all other races. Hitler became obsessed with 'racial purity' and used the word 'Aryan' to describe his idea of a 'pure German race' or Herrenvolk. The 'Aryan race' had a duty to control the world.
The Nazis believed that the Aryans had the most "pure blood" of all the people on earth. The ideal Aryan had pale skin, blond hair and blue eyes.
Non-Aryans came to be seen as impure and even evil. Hitler believed that Aryan superiority was being threatened particularly by the Jews. Therefore, a hierarchy of 'races' was created with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation."
https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/how-did-nazis-construct-aryan-identity
"The Aryan race is a pseudoscientific historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people who descend from the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a racial grouping.[1][2] The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". Anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept.[3][4]
The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were distinct progenitors of a superior specimen of humankind,[5][6] and that their descendants up to the present day constitute either a distinctive race or a sub-race of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race and the Hamitic race.[7][8] This taxonomic approach to categorizing human population groups is now considered to be misguided and biologically meaningless due to the close genetic similarity and complex interrelationships between these groups.[9][10][11]
The term was adopted by various racist and antisemitic writers during the 19th century, including Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain,[12] whose scientific racism influenced later Nazi racial ideology.[13] By the 1930s, the concept had been associated with both Nazism and Nordicism,[14] and used to support the white supremacist ideology of Aryanism that portrayed the Aryan race as a "master race",[15] with non-Aryans regarded as racially inferior (Untermensch, lit. 'subhuman') and an existential threat that was to be exterminated.[16] In Nazi Germany, these ideas formed an essential part of the state ideology that led to the Holocaust.[17][18]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race
re: "Trump's millions fewer genocided Jews"
You're the one who brought up how Vance called Trump "Hitler". If you think Vance is wrong, simply because Trump hasn't successfully performed another Holocaust, then feel free to take it up with Vance.
You failed to answer a basic question again, appear to think being blonde is more Nazi than genociding millions of people, and haven't kept up with the last few months of news to realize Vance already thought Vance was wrong.
Oh no. No, no, no. lmao.
Vance called Trump "America's Hitler" back in 2016. You assert that Vance no longer believes that, but has Vance ever explained why he used to believe that? Why did Vance think Trump was analogous to Hitler, back in 2016?
A sentiment colostomy bag would be less full of shit, why bother?
You're not wrong :/
