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.
Denunciation of Suppression: He maintains that the law seeks to "steal" elections by imposing bureaucratic barriers (such as original birth certificates) that would disenfranchise millions of legitimate citizens, especially women and young people.
Solution to a Fake Problem: He argues that non-citizen voting is already a federal crime and that this law only serves to fuel conspiracy theories and distrust in the electoral system.
Questioning of Motives: He defines the proposal as a partisan tactic designed to create administrative chaos and allow political actors to challenge legitimate results in the future.
On March 22 2026 09:44 KwarK wrote: I think you’re overlooking the pogroms like Kristallnacht. baal’s argument is actually the exact inverse of true. baal is arguing that we can extrapolate what they knew from whether they fled and they didn’t flee and therefore they didn’t know. But the majority of Jews living in Germany in 1933 did flee by 1939, despite facing considerable restrictions and being forced to forfeit all their property to the state. Therefore, per baal’s argument, we can conclude that they did know they would be killed.
Wrong. that many emigrated doesnt mean they knew they were going to get killed, everybody knew it was going to get bad for jews but not to what extent.
However the fact that many remained does prove that they didn't know they were going to get killed.
Right up until the war started we had German Jewish parents putting their young children on trains and sending them out of Germany. The parents had no plans for reunification, no knowledge of where the children would end up, whether siblings would be kept together, whether they would be abused, allowed to keep their faith etc. They just put children on the train and trusted that someone would meet them at the station and attempt to connect them with foster parents of some sort.
As a parent I can imagine at least some of what it took to do that. To abandon a six year old knowing that you'd almost certainly never see them again but that by putting them on a train and sending them away they might survive what was coming. They knew.
Not long ago there was a sad pic of a kid dead on the beach trying to reach Europe, parents take these risks in pursuit of better futures, a shit load of mexicans kids are smuggled with far relatives or even strangers into the US, you don't need such a threat to emigrate.
Also as I said in my post which you should read again, I'm sure many jews knew how it was gong to end and those were the ones that fled, but many others didn't and that's the whole point of Nazis never explicitly mentioning killing.
On March 22 2026 09:44 KwarK wrote: I think you’re overlooking the pogroms like Kristallnacht. baal’s argument is actually the exact inverse of true. baal is arguing that we can extrapolate what they knew from whether they fled and they didn’t flee and therefore they didn’t know. But the majority of Jews living in Germany in 1933 did flee by 1939, despite facing considerable restrictions and being forced to forfeit all their property to the state. Therefore, per baal’s argument, we can conclude that they did know they would be killed.
Wrong. that many emigrated doesnt mean they knew they were going to get killed, everybody knew it was going to get bad for jews but not to what extent.
However the fact that many remained does prove that they didn't know they were going to get killed.
Right up until the war started we had German Jewish parents putting their young children on trains and sending them out of Germany. The parents had no plans for reunification, no knowledge of where the children would end up, whether siblings would be kept together, whether they would be abused, allowed to keep their faith etc. They just put children on the train and trusted that someone would meet them at the station and attempt to connect them with foster parents of some sort.
As a parent I can imagine at least some of what it took to do that. To abandon a six year old knowing that you'd almost certainly never see them again but that by putting them on a train and sending them away they might survive what was coming. They knew.
Not long ago there was a sad pic of a kid dead on the beach trying to reach Europe, parents take these risks in pursuit of better futures, a shit load of mexicans kids are smuggled with far relatives or even strangers into the US, you don't need such a threat to emigrate.
Also as I said in my post which you should read again, I'm sure many jews knew how it was gong to end and those were the ones that fled, but many others didn't and that's the whole point of Nazis never explicitly mentioning killing.
The Jews who stayed probably stayed due to a lack of resources, not a lack of will.
It's always the working class that pays the price and puts the dead...
The problem is never religious or ethnic; it's always a class problem. racism and religion are excuses of the oligarchy to carry out their strategy...
The Jewish bourgeoisie cared little for the fate of their "comrades"... they were only interested in protecting their class privileges. Some more humanitarian probably wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper or something symbolic, the rest continued living happily in the United States or South America while complaining about Nazism, having tea and eating cookies with their friends on the Sabbath+ Show Spoiler +
(or whatever it is that Jews do on the Sabbath)
...
think about it, the Jews cared so little about what happened to the rest that they had to wait for the harshest repression to begin to defend themselves among themselves and take up arms. Armed resistance and direct action began to occur when the entire Jewish bourgeoisie had already left Europe like the cowards they are
In fact, their commitment to human life was so little that one of them ended up making the genocide of Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible ROFLMAO
On March 22 2026 13:01 baal wrote: What is concerning is not only that obviously Hitler didn't run on the "kill all jews" campaign, but that if he did he wouldn't have won the elections, it's such a misread of history and human nature to believe that tens of millions of normal German citizens just happened to be so evil that they all wanted kill all jews.
It distorts the past to a point where any lesson to be learned from, is lost.
But Hitler didn't win any fair elections.
You seem to be completely unaware of the actual history here in a way that would be embarrassing to a normal person. In Germany's last free election (November 1932) there was a significant swing against the Nazis and they lost 34 seats. They had 33.5% of the seats.
Hitler wasn't elected into office, he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg and then used emergency powers to remove opposition parties before the next election.
On March 22 2026 13:01 baal wrote: What is concerning is not only that obviously Hitler didn't run on the "kill all jews" campaign, but that if he did he wouldn't have won the elections, it's such a misread of history and human nature to believe that tens of millions of normal German citizens just happened to be so evil that they all wanted kill all jews.
It distorts the past to a point where any lesson to be learned from, is lost.
But Hitler didn't win any fair elections.
You seem to be completely unaware of the actual history here in a way that would be embarrassing to a normal person. In Germany's last free election (November 1932) there was a significant swing against the Nazis and they lost 34 seats. They had 33.5% of the seats.
Hitler wasn't elected into office, he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg and then used emergency powers to remove opposition parties before the next election.
On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote: I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this.
Mueller personally tried to destroy Trump, and died of natural causes.
On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote: I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this.
Mueller personally tried to destroy Trump, and died of natural causes.
The left believe that Mueller, a Republican, failed in his duty when he didn't recommend impeachment while the redhats famously insist that Mueller fully exonerated Trump.
Similarly, Trump said of it: "The Mueller report was great. It could not have been better." Later he said it was a "total hit job". Later still he called it "a beautiful report."
Not to dissimilar to his vacillating assessment on the 'very complete' nature of the Iran war.
On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote: Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened?
YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust.
I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice.
The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret.
-When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him.
That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like.
Hitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews. Deeper into the war his rhetoric shifter towards total destruction of the jewery in Europe, language vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent.
I mean, It's pretty obvious, do you think german citizens would vote in a guy that from day one ran a campaing on mass murder of every single jew? That would be a big misconception of how things like the holocaust happen
On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:
On March 21 2026 15:37 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, they literally wrote a book about doing it and it's not like Kristallnacht was secret either.
If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war?
Most people didn't know, sure, the ones that read mein kampf, the ones that paid close attention and were smart enough knew, and many fled.
The soviets did the same thing, Stalin publicly promised "the elimination of the kulak class" and everybody cheered, most didn't know they were going to get killed.
You'll note how the original question, the replied and bolded "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews ... yet they did in secret" was summarily dropped. The goalposts moved to, "Was there any violence" and "Let's count emigration" and "Was there violent antisemitism." So you can tell broad agreement with the claim by how quickly it was silently accepted and changed. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum online resources are right about it, for those that clicked your link. The lies were to conceal what they were doing, and not totally ineffective because they had told everyone exactly what they planned to do from the start.
You get fuzzy later, since forced transfer or children/prevention of births can be considered "genocide." It's not just about murdering an ethnic/religious minority.
Are you talking about my post here? I didn't think there would be pushback saying that Nazis were intent on exterminating all the Jews. That kind of blindsided me to be honest.
I was a little surprised in the opposite direction. I thought it was more widely known that the extermination part was done in secret, and with great care taken to conceal these efforts from the public. The Nazis had a public message of labor camps and actually built/rebuilt Theresienstadt to as a hoax retirement community. Maybe you forgot, but the claim was
stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews
, where they were busy trying to fool the world that they were engaged in separation/segregation and emigration for years. Did you read the Holocaust Museum link, and is there anything in there that you disagree with?
I mean if you read "stated intent" to mean "ran on with this on an election", then no. But we were talking about why the swastikas were banned as a symbol, and what the symbol represents. Maybe I should have been clearer, but still don't understand how nitpicking a word disproves the broader point that swastikas are basically a symbol of extreme antisemitism, i.e. "gassing the Jews", and white supremacy which was the original point.
This tangent on well yeah, but they did it in secret so nobody could have really known at the time, is honestly weird. What the Nazis did was so unfathomably evil that that's why everything related to Nazism is banned in Europe. It's something that makes sense if you know the context. Like, of course you should be processed for hate speech if you organise a nazi parade and start throwing Nazi salutes and chanting Heil Hitler or whatever, how is that even a question? Pick a different hill to die on for free speech.
On March 22 2026 13:08 XenOsky wrote: Whitehouse on the Save america Act:
that would disenfranchise millions of legitimate citizens, especially women and young people.
Why would it affect specially women?
You need either a passport (which many Americans don't have) or a birth certificate that exactly matches your current legal name. If you don't have the above you need additonal documentation such as a marriage/divorce licence or other notarised records that confirm your name change. Birth certificates are apparently not that hard to get.
People in the US often lack a passport. Women frequently change their name when they marry. Google estimate that 69mn women in the US doesn't have a legal name which matches their birth certificate.
That means: 1) additional costs for documents 2) a lot more time to get the required documentation 3) additional logistical strain on the person who often manages the household.
On March 22 2026 13:08 XenOsky wrote: Whitehouse on the Save america Act:
that would disenfranchise millions of legitimate citizens, especially women and young people.
Why would it affect specially women?
Because many women traditionally change their last name when they get married (to match their husband's last name), so their birth certificate's last name is no longer the one they use. More married women do this than married men. Anyone who has changed their name - even if it's already been verified decades ago and they've been legally voting in past elections - would have additional hurdles to clear before being able to vote, and millions of Americans don't have access to what's needed to clear these hurdles (and/or it would suddenly cost them extra money just to be able to vote, which is unconstitutional because the 24th Amendment forbids financial barriers to voting - poll taxes are illegal).
It should also be noted that this isn't an accident; it's intentional and malicious. Republicans are actively trying to disenfranchise groups that disproportionately vote for Democrats (like women). It's a strategy to suppress current voters of the opposition, rather than create political platforms that appeal to them.
On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote: I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this.
Mueller personally tried to destroy Trump, and died of natural causes.
"Charlie Kirk (right wing agitator) was a debateable character"
-> You lose your job <-
"Glad that Mueller (Former head of FBI) is dead, so he can no longer hurt innocent people"
-> You stay president"<-
Human rights and Geneva convention and the war:
"Make gas cheaper or we bomb civil infrastructure with our toilet starved aircraftcarrier that is also on fire"
It's time that Europe... finally... 'taxes' US tech, especially AI. Like make employers pay the same amount for social insurance for every install/license of CoPilot, ChadGPT... as they already are paying for the employee who uses them.
IF AI really replaces people, it should pay for their healthcare - or kill them, just be of consequence.
On March 22 2026 16:45 KT_Elwood wrote: Free speech:
"Charlie Kirk (right wing agitator) was a debateable character"
-> You lose your job <-
"Glad that Mueller (Former head of FBI) is dead, so he can no longer hurt innocent people"
-> You stay president"<-
Human rights and Geneva convention and the war:
"Make gas cheaper or we bomb civil infrastructure with our toilet starved aircraftcarrier that is also on fire"
It's time that Europe... finally... 'taxes' US tech, especially AI. Like make employers pay the same amount for social insurance for every install/license of CoPilot, ChadGPT... as they already are paying for the employee who uses them.
IF AI really replaces people, it should pay for their healthcare - or kill them, just be of consequence.
I'm sure Americans like it just as much as I like this post telling us what to do. Taxing employers for the use of AI is an absurd angle that'll immediately kill any homegrown innovation in the area, with a long-term impact of making Europe MORE reliant on US/China AI tech, not less.
There are about a million ways of doing this so it doesn't hurt local innovation and is a broader tax on US tech, most of which are under consideration by the EU, but they all have downsides that need to be considered. It isn't an easy problem. But charging social security fees for AI usage is nuts.
On March 22 2026 13:25 XenOsky wrote: The Jews who stayed probably stayed due to a lack of resources, not a lack of will.
Sure they had no feet...
Mexicans with a couple of bucks and worn out shoes cross the desert to go to the US with just economic incentive every fucking day.
It's always the working class that pays the price and puts the dead...
The problem is never religious or ethnic; it's always a class problem. racism and religion are excuses of the oligarchy to carry out their strategy...
The Jewish bourgeoisie cared little for the fate of their "comrades"... they were only interested in protecting their class privileges. Some more humanitarian probably wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper or something symbolic, the rest continued living happily in the United States or South America while complaining about Nazism, having tea and eating cookies with their friends on the Sabbath+ Show Spoiler +
(or whatever it is that Jews do on the Sabbath)
...
think about it, the Jews cared so little about what happened to the rest that they had to wait for the harshest repression to begin to defend themselves among themselves and take up arms. Armed resistance and direct action began to occur when the entire Jewish bourgeoisie had already left Europe like the cowards they are
In fact, their commitment to human life was so little that one of them ended up making the genocide of Hiroshima and Nagasaki possible ROFLMAO
On March 22 2026 13:01 baal wrote: What is concerning is not only that obviously Hitler didn't run on the "kill all jews" campaign, but that if he did he wouldn't have won the elections, it's such a misread of history and human nature to believe that tens of millions of normal German citizens just happened to be so evil that they all wanted kill all jews.
It distorts the past to a point where any lesson to be learned from, is lost.
But Hitler didn't win any fair elections.
You seem to be completely unaware of the actual history here in a way that would be embarrassing to a normal person. In Germany's last free election (November 1932) there was a significant swing against the Nazis and they lost 34 seats. They had 33.5% of the seats.
Hitler wasn't elected into office, he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg and then used emergency powers to remove opposition parties before the next election.
The only embarrassing thing here, is you.
The Nazi party was the biggest party in Germany long before any shenanigans,.
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history" lol
It's wild that you say I dont know history because of some minor mistakes yet you completely read the core of history wrong and you think all the Jews knew they were going to be killed and that all the German citizens voted for mass murder of Jews knowingly.
On March 22 2026 16:45 KT_Elwood wrote: Free speech:
"Charlie Kirk (right wing agitator) was a debateable character"
-> You lose your job <-
"Glad that Mueller (Former head of FBI) is dead, so he can no longer hurt innocent people"
-> You stay president"<-
Human rights and Geneva convention and the war:
"Make gas cheaper or we bomb civil infrastructure with our toilet starved aircraftcarrier that is also on fire"
It's time that Europe... finally... 'taxes' US tech, especially AI. Like make employers pay the same amount for social insurance for every install/license of CoPilot, ChadGPT... as they already are paying for the employee who uses them.
IF AI really replaces people, it should pay for their healthcare - or kill them, just be of consequence.
I'm sure Americans like it just as much as I like this post telling us what to do. Taxing employers for the use of AI is an absurd angle that'll immediately kill any homegrown innovation in the area, with a long-term impact of making Europe MORE reliant on US/China AI tech, not less.
There are about a million ways of doing this so it doesn't hurt local innovation and is a broader tax on US tech, most of which are under consideration by the EU, but they all have downsides that need to be considered. It isn't an easy problem. But charging social security fees for AI usage is nuts.
trying to explain 2nd order effects to lefties is hard, gl.
On March 22 2026 13:25 XenOsky wrote: The Jews who stayed probably stayed due to a lack of resources, not a lack of will.
Sure they had no feet...
Mexicans with a couple of bucks and worn out shoes cross the desert to go to the US with just economic incentive every fucking day.
Oh my fucking god you cannot be serious. If this is what you consider "reasonable", that absolutely explains why you have such a hard time finding "reasonable" people in this thread.
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance.
Also, unlike the US desert, Germany is full of people. Americans have a hard time understanding how densely populated all of Germany is. There are very few areas where you don't have some village every 2 km.
And during the third Reich, a lot of these people were Nazis who were not to keen on Jews walking through. Not to mention police, SA, SS, gestapo and all the other organizations to control people that the Nazis had set up. None of which are very likely to just let random enemies of the people wander around willy-nilly.
On March 22 2026 13:01 baal wrote: What is concerning is not only that obviously Hitler didn't run on the "kill all jews" campaign, but that if he did he wouldn't have won the elections, it's such a misread of history and human nature to believe that tens of millions of normal German citizens just happened to be so evil that they all wanted kill all jews.
It distorts the past to a point where any lesson to be learned from, is lost.
But Hitler didn't win any fair elections.
You seem to be completely unaware of the actual history here in a way that would be embarrassing to a normal person. In Germany's last free election (November 1932) there was a significant swing against the Nazis and they lost 34 seats. They had 33.5% of the seats.
Hitler wasn't elected into office, he was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg and then used emergency powers to remove opposition parties before the next election.
The only embarrassing thing here, is you.
The Nazi party was the biggest party in Germany long before any shenanigans,.
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history" lol
It's wild that you say I dont know history because of some minor mistakes yet you completely read the core of history wrong and you think all the Jews knew they were going to be killed and that all the German citizens voted for mass murder of Jews knowingly.
Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations.
Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you.
The NSDAP was never elected. They never got enough of a majority to actually be the government, and they could not convince any other party to work with them because they are fucking lunatics.
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance.
France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark...
The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce.
Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations.
And you dont seem to understand simple arguments
Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you.
Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.
-------------------------------
Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were:
- Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public.
- Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/257ab1464ced7223a31885f9a3ab53bf.png)
