Why Trump/Hitler Comparisons are Unfair

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Craig4

If the assumption turns out to be unfounded, who cares? It's just Trump, no rule of honesty, or decency applies.

So, the rule of not stooping to their level is dead? There is no higher ground?

Damned shame, really.

Originally Posted by Craig4

It would be unpatriotic to have a means of inflicting political damage on Trump and not use it, honest or not.

Wow, I find that quite breathtaking.

"Unpatriotic"! That's the kind of language I'd expect from the Second Amendment People.

If, as I presume, you're a Democrat, you're a very good example of what to do to harden to support Trump already has, and guaranteed to create more.

I bet you think De Niro screeching "**** Trump" is a good tactic, too.

Am I completely wrong and both sides are now Hitler?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Unless it backfires........

How many independent voters think Clinton engaged in malfeasance over Uranium One? I'm not too worried about backfiring.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Hitler raised the living standards temporarily by planning to invade and pillage all the other countries in Europe. he destroyed the civilian economy to fund and fuel the military.
He was no economic genius and performed no economic miracles, it was all a sham.

It could only work if the all that investment in the military started earning a good enough return to pay for itself and keep up with the times. Nothing gets out-of-date faster than military investment : the pressure to use it or forget it can be immense.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If you want to follow that line of thinking, we probably need a new thread, because the mere fact that Hitler was able to plunder so much money out of the German economy for weapons, while simultaneously rasing the living standard of all Germany, does mean he performed economic miracles.

He did it by plundering the rest of Europe. Where was the miracle?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

So, the rule of not stooping to their level is dead? There is no higher ground?

Damned shame, really.



Wow, I find that quite breathtaking.

"Unpatriotic"! That's the kind of language I'd expect from the Second Amendment People.

If, as I presume, you're a Democrat, you're a very good example of what to do to harden to support Trump already has, and guaranteed to create more.

I bet you think De Niro screeching "**** Trump" is a good tactic, too.

Am I completely wrong and both sides are now Hitler?

I'm not a member of any political party. I've just seen what happens when they go low and you go high. You get a Russian whore in the Whitehouse. Who the hell cares about Trump's base? It's the independent voter that matters. Trump can't win with just his base. It's the better of two evils voter that matters.

I don't think just "**** Trump" is a good idea. I think Trump, photoshopped with a Nazi arm band, accepting the Nazi salute from supporters (as he did during the campaign) with a foreground dissolve of children being separated from their parents is a good idea. You have to offer enough facts and images for the message to stick.

Yes, this will turn off high minded Democratic voters. There are enough of what used to be called 527 organizations out there who can run a bare knuckles, no holds barred campaign while actual candidates stay above the fray. The Democratic base can maintain their high ideals while the formerly called 527s see just how far they can sink in the mud.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

I'm getting a certain impression here.

Only because you're not reading the posts is my guess.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Do you think the holocaust, as reported in mainstream publications, happened?

Stupid questions get ignored in my threads, sorry.

"Mainstream publications..."

Srsly?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Do you have any evidence that the opening post was wrong?

Do I have any evidence that Hitler didn't raise the standard of living for all Germans?

Yes. Yes, I believe I do.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I'm not a member of any political party. I've just seen what happens when they go low and you go high. You get a Russian whore in the Whitehouse.

Utter nonsense.

Hillary never took the high ground, and she was im,ediately aware that her "deplorables" comment was a complete mistake.

Bernie might have been able to take the high ground, but Hillary - whose husband, you may recall, was William Jefferson Clinton - never had the opportunity or brains to take it.

Originally Posted by Craig4

Who the hell cares about Trump's base?

Anyone who opposes him should. They're the ones with all the guns, remember?

Originally Posted by Craig4

It's the independent voter that matters. Trump can't win with just his base. It's the better of two evils voter that matters.

Given his current approval rating being the same as both Clinton and Obama at the same stage of his presidency, I think he seems to be going fine with independents and swinging voters.

Originally Posted by Craig4

I don't think just "**** Trump" is a good idea. I think Trump, photoshopped with a Nazi arm band, accepting the Nazi salute from supporters (as he did during the campaign) with a foreground dissolve of children being separated from their parents is a good idea. You have to offer enough facts and images for the message to stick.

All I can say is go back to page 1 - Nazi comparisons are the worst possible choice.

And it really is unfair to Adolph - one of the things I meant to put at the start was public speaking. Trump is a buffoon, while Hitler was mesmerising and didn't need to rely on three-word chants.

[JoeMorgue]

Stepping back from the exact example, I think as tribalism becomes more ingrained falling in love with a single point of comparison and leaning on it to the detriment of the overall political discussion.

Whether or not "Trump is like Hitler" is so tied into tribalism as to make it both impossible and pointless to argue with anyone who doesn't already agree with you so the question is moot.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think Mussolini is a much better comparasion.

Mussolini and Trump are of a much more common type than stand-outs like Hitler.


Mussolini is known as the founder of fascism, but anyone who thinks they'll determine what fascism means from Mussolini's words will be disappointed. Mussolini spends a lot of time on what fascism isn't, his thing being special because it's his. There's no substance, simply posturing and rhetoric. Just like Trump.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Way too simplified in the first sentence, ,but correct in that Hitler's economic recovery was smoke and mirrors.finianced by what amounted to junk bonds. In fact, the Nazi economy was beginning to unravel in early 1939.
See a excellent book on the economic history of the Third Reich called "The Wages of Destruction" for details.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Stepping back from the exact example, I think as tribalism becomes more ingrained falling in love with a single point of comparison and leaning on it to the detriment of the overall political discussion.

Whether or not "Trump is like Hitler" is so tied into tribalism as to make it both impossible and pointless to argue with anyone who doesn't already agree with you so the question is moot.

Well, if you're right, USA is going to become the new Africa.

Canada is the place that should be building a wall.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Not actually nitpicking, because they have different meanings - I'm sure you mean "compliment".

I do. Thanks.

[Ziggurat]

This thread is pathetic. So I'm going to make this post the best post in the thread. Ready?

Say what you will about Hitler, but at least he killed Hitler.

You can all go home now.

[Brainster]

I've long maintained that those who compare any politician to Hitler are not attempting to overstate the evil of the politician, or to understate the evil of Hitler. They are trying to puff up their own bravery in standing up to (Trump/Obama/Bush) as the modern day equivalent of the Society of the White Rose. It's pretty pathetic.

[Upchurch]

We're allowed to point out when current events parallel those of history, but only when that history isn't of late 1930's Germany?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

We're allowed to point out when current events parallel those of history, but only when that history isn't of late 1930's Germany?

There are no western parallels to late 1930s Germany.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

There are no western parallels to late 1930s Germany.

No nationalistic leader blaming a country's problems on a powerless minority? You don't see anything in current events that might be even a little bit similar?

[CapelDodger]

Trump/Hitler comparisons are , of course, complete nonsense. Hitler was a career politician dedicated to an ideology (National Socialism) and an established party structure (the NSDAP) to promote it. The closest Trump ever got to ideology was "Make America Great Again", and the GOP is no substitute for a real political party.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Craig4

I'm not a member of any political party. I've just seen what happens when they go low and you go high. You get a Russian whore in the Whitehouse. Who the hell cares about Trump's base? It's the independent voter that matters. Trump can't win with just his base. It's the better of two evils voter that matters.

I don't think just "**** Trump" is a good idea. I think Trump, photoshopped with a Nazi arm band, accepting the Nazi salute from supporters (as he did during the campaign) with a foreground dissolve of children being separated from their parents is a good idea. You have to offer enough facts and images for the message to stick.

Yes, this will turn off high minded Democratic voters. There are enough of what used to be called 527 organizations out there who can run a bare knuckles, no holds barred campaign while actual candidates stay above the fray. The Democratic base can maintain their high ideals while the formerly called 527s see just how far they can sink in the mud.

Yep.

The Trumpists aren't going to play nice, and this is the future of the USA we're talking about here. Roll up your sleeves and fight dirty, or you'll have a one-party Trumpist country in a couple of years.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Trump/Hitler comparisons are , of course, complete nonsense. Hitler was a career politician dedicated to an ideology (National Socialism) and an established party structure (the NSDAP) to promote it. The closest Trump ever got to ideology was "Make America Great Again", and the GOP is no substitute for a real political party.

"Make America Great Again" is actually an ideology. Trump has shown us what it is. Here's what we can glean would be in a Trumpist manifesto:

- Democracy is only good when I win, therefore it's better to have the illusion of democracy than actual democracy.

- Money belongs to the rich.

- Protecting the environment costs too much money.

- Brown people are icky and shouldn't be anywhere near me. Preferably not even in the same country.

- Black people are thugs.

- Muslims are completely alien to my world view and should be treated as brown people.

- Authoritarian leaders are easier to deal with because they flatter me. Democratic leaders don't, so I'm not going to play with them.

Substitute spelling errors as suited.

You might say that this isn't an ideology but simply what Trump thinks. I see clear policies there, and they are clearly derived from a Trumpist ideology.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Yep.

The Trumpists aren't going to play nice, and this is the future of the USA we're talking about here. Roll up your sleeves and fight dirty, or you'll have a one-party Trumpist country in a couple of years.

Amen. Nothing moves the needle like comparing American politicians to Hitler because he is cracking down on criminals.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Amen. Nothing moves the needle like comparing American politicians to Hitler because he is cracking down on criminals.

Misdemeanors. He's cracking down on people who have committed misdemeanors, and sometimes not even that, if they are seeking asylum.

[The Great Zaganza]

The constant need to hold rallies alone is strongly reminiscent of Mussolini/Hitler.

[Fudbucker]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Only because you're not reading the posts is my guess.



Stupid questions get ignored in my threads, sorry.

"Mainstream publications..."

Srsly?

I'm always suspicious when people dodge questions that have obvious answers.

And of course you know what mainstream means. Acounts of the holocaust, like Britannica's, not the American Nazi Party's take on it. Do you agree Britannica's account is an accurate representation of what happened?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Utter nonsense.

Hillary never took the high ground, and she was im,ediately aware that her "deplorables" comment was a complete mistake.

Bernie might have been able to take the high ground, but Hillary - whose husband, you may recall, was William Jefferson Clinton - never had the opportunity or brains to take it.



Anyone who opposes him should. They're the ones with all the guns, remember?



Given his current approval rating being the same as both Clinton and Obama at the same stage of his presidency, I think he seems to be going fine with independents and swinging voters.



All I can say is go back to page 1 - Nazi comparisons are the worst possible choice.

And it really is unfair to Adolph - one of the things I meant to put at the start was public speaking. Trump is a buffoon, while Hitler was mesmerising and didn't need to rely on three-word chants.

It's got to be a Nazi comparison with powerful, emotional images and high production values. Simply calling Trump a Nazi won't do.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do...p-nazi-salute/

This image with the audio of the girl crying, then some Sieg Heil audio with the sound of stormtrooper boots marching, maybe racists quotes. It practically writes itself.

ETA: And don't forget to add the clip of the head of CBP saying they are just following orders.

[Lothian]

I am not sure it is fair to compare the most evil, derranged, racist, psychopath the world has ever known with Hitler.

[llwyd]

Yep, he is much more like Mussolini. Despises liberal democracy and the postwar Western alliance but not fanatic and energetic enough to cause an actual genocide. In any case, the best return to roubles ever spent.

[Craig4]

It's fine if you make the case, honestly or not.

[The Don]

Threads that suggest that President Trump is the same or worse than Hitler or Mussolini or Franco or some African dictator or Papa Doc or whoever may be entertaining rhetorical devices for the person who starts the thread but IMO completely misses the point - each authoritarian dictator seems to have their own signature style and you can cherry pick from any and give the impression that President X is as bad as dictator Y.

At the moment, despite the supine GOP, President Trump and his Administration are not in a position to implement whatever policies they want. As damaged as the checks and balances are by a legislative branch where gerrymandering and voter suppression result in a 7% advantage for one party and a judicial branch whose ranks are being stuffed with unqualified partisan hacks, they are currently (just) working.

What is worrying for me is that despite all the rhetoric used against President George W Bush (Fascist) or Obama (Communist) there was never any real prospect of US democracy being unpicked or US society being fundamentally changed. The current administration isn't in a position to do that (yet), but President Trump is acting like that's what he wants to happen and that is worrying enough.

IMO it doesn't matter whether President Trump is worse than Hitler (though IMO he's several orders of magnitude less bad) but what does matter is:

• His relentless attack on the free press and his unconditional support of and from FoxNews
• His repeated racist attacks on blacks and Hispanics and his scapegoating of them for many of the US's ills
• His seeming desire to rule by fiat, bypassing the legislative and judicial branches
• His impulsiveness and apparent lack of consistency when it comes to major policies
• His apparent constant demand for adulation
• The fact IMO that he is not the cause of all of this, he is merely a symptom. 40%+ of the US electorate are happy with his performance and this is the kind of person that they actively want as their President

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Yep, he is much more like Mussolini. Despises liberal democracy and the postwar Western alliance but not fanatic and energetic enough to cause an actual genocide. In any case, the best return to roubles ever spent.

That's probably fair. Trump just doesn't have the organizational skills to be as good at being evil as Hitler. That doesn't make him less like Hitler in a moral sense.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

We're allowed to point out when current events parallel those of history, but only when that history isn't of late 1930's Germany?

It would help if you could convince everybody else to stop doing this with every president. Google ObamaHitler and you'll get this revealing Slate article by Jamelle Bouie:

Quote:

Nothing in this attack makes sense, but—in choosing Hitler as his point of comparison—Weber has revived an erstwhile tradition of American politics: Comparing the president to Adolf Hitler. This was a part of life during the George W. Bush administration, and it picked up steam with Obama’s arrival on the national stage. Of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of examples, here are a few of my favorites.

Of course, he only focuses on the comparisons of Obama to Hitler after that, but he makes a very fair point at the end:

Quote:

I should say that, for the most part, I don’t think any of these are sincere. I’m not sure that anyone who calls Obama “Hitler”—or who did the same to George W. Bush—is thinking much about their analogy. Instead, they’re reaching for the most evil name they can imagine, and attaching it to their chief political opponent.

Have you seen the photoshops with Hillary (or George W.) wearing a Hitler mustache? I have. I don't recall Bill getting much of the Hitler treatment by comparison (probably got more the Stalinist label). Reagan certainly got the unfavorable comparisons, and Nixon probably was considered more like Satan himself.

That's the point. Everybody acts like it's the end of the world when the other party gets elected. Hell or some environmental catastrophe is around the corner. Untold numbers of criminals will cross our border, or one saintly woman will arrive carrying five babies who will cure cancer, the common cold and bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth in our society (the other two merely become Supreme Court Justices). The future as always, lies somewhere between and probably very far between them.

I can understand why it's useful for the political parties to characterize each other as amazingly evil with bad intentions. "Red meat" keeps the base in line. But I would hope that at some point, real skeptics would apply the skepticism to their own side and recognize the hyperbole for what it is. Like Diogenes, I search in vain.

I don't think that the Democrats are the second coming of the Bolsheviks and I don't think the Republicans are the second coming of the Nazis. And basically the differences between the parties 100 years from now will seem as amazingly petty and bizarre as would the political arguments today have seemed to a citizen of 1918.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

I'm always suspicious when people dodge questions that have obvious answers.

We're both in the same boat then - I'm deeply suspicious of people who ask stupid questions, especially when the answer is right in front of them.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

Do you agree Britannica's account is an accurate representation of what happened?

Nope. I haven't read it, so I'm not going to agree with it. And Brittanica? Have I gone through a time warp to the 1970s? Surely, you mean Wikipedia?

Anyway, I have to confess to never having read a single encyclopaedia article on the Holocaust and have no intention of ever doing so.

Originally Posted by Brainster

I don't think that the Democrats are the second coming of the Bolsheviks and I don't think the Republicans are the second coming of the Nazis. And basically the differences between the parties 100 years from now will seem as amazingly petty and bizarre as would the political arguments today have seemed to a citizen of 1918.

Extremely well-written post from every angle.

Thanks!

[The Great Zaganza]

The problem with the Hitler comparison is that it is so easy to strawman.

Trump is a populist demagogue, so there is no avoiding similarities to other leaders who came to power using the same tactics.
It's a silly slippery-slope argument to claim that Trump is Hitler - it's even worse to deny the right to talk about the potential for Trump to further slip into autocracy and xenophobia.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The problem with the Hitler comparison is that it is so easy to strawman.

Trump is a populist demagogue, so there is no avoiding similarities to other leaders who came to power using the same tactics.
It's a silly slippery-slope argument to claim that Trump is Hitler - it's even worse to deny the right to talk about the potential for Trump to further slip into autocracy and xenophobia.

Yep! And a couple of more "Yeps".

The problem is handing paleo-conservatives a chew toy that they can use for distraction. There are more parallels to various tinpot dictators around the world than there are to great democratic leaders, that's for certain.

You can go through a whole check list of items where Trump has similarities with Hitler but then you get to that "Homicidal Maniac Who Wanted to Take Over the World and Murder All the Mudbloods" and you do, fairly have to check the "No" box.

You hand this to conservatives who, let's face it, don't have much to argue their case, and you present them with yet another opportunity to straw man the position and avoid discussing the horrid policies they support. It might be handy if we concentrated on some other excess-riddled regimes. Learn more about the Khanate, Caligula, Nero, Montezouma.... etc... And then realize that what we're fighting is Trumpism. It's a new variation of highly ignorant oligarchical plutocracy.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Fudbucker

I'm always suspicious when people dodge questions that have obvious answers.

And of course you know what mainstream means. Acounts of the holocaust, like Britannica's, not the American Nazi Party's take on it. Do you agree Britannica's account is an accurate representation of what happened?

Oh, do stop! You're not seriously suspecting TA of being a holocaust denier? Nazi hugger? Did someone slip you some Paranoia Flakes for breakfast?

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by uke2se

There are many comparisons between Trumpism and Nazism. There are few comparisons between Trump and Hitler.

That's true, but still a Godwin.

There are many just as relevant comparisons with any of the following:
- Chavism
- Orbanism
- Edroganism (?)

And probably more, many more. These are just the ones active today in various countries (Venezuela, Hungary and Turkey). All use the same approach of dividing the country into two parts, "ours" and "the others" and rule exclusively for the benefit of their own favored group to deteriment of all others. They all claim someone else is to blame for the ills of their favored group and that they themselves have all the answers.

It's always a lie, they have little to no answers, but their favored voter group are the people who are unwilling or unable to listen to reason when hooked up. Once in power they begin to abuse state resources to control the media and send down a favorable picture of themselves that their target audience gobbles up while the rest of the country shakes their heads in disbelief. The rest of the country tries in vain to convince their chosen demographic, they try to use democratic to bring about change, but is stomped down by the increasingly heavy boot of authoritarianism. Venezuela is the most further advanced, followed by Turkey, Hungary and USA is the last.

By contrast, Nazis had a fairly large share of actual popular support. They didn't seek to divide Germans into two halves but to unite all Germans (even Germanics) against an array of foreign enemies - Jews, Slavs and French, mostly. Of course there were also German enemies, socialists and communists, German Jews and more but they were always deep in the minority, the "us vs them" mentality was directed outwards, not so much inwards as with these four.

I find Chavez a better comparison to Trump than Hitler. Sure, it's an imperfect comparison since there are crucial and painfully obvious differences between the two, but he's more similar to Chavez than to Hitler. Whether or not that's a good thing remains an open question.

McHrozni

[Captain_Swoop]

"They didn't seek to divide Germans into two halves but to unite all Germans"

"Of course there were also German enemies, socialists and communists, German Jews and more"


You refuted yourself in the same post.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It would help if you could convince everybody else to stop doing this with every president.

The thing is, I don’t make the comparison with every president. I haven’t even made the comparison with any other president. I’m not making this comparison out of knee-jerk tribalism and, just because others do, it does not mean that every such comparison is unwarranted hyperbole.

Besides, and this is not directed at Brainster’s post specifically, I’m not even suggesting that Trump is the same or worse than Hitler. I’m suggesting that he is using a very similar tactic: single out a powerless minorities in society, vilify them far our of proportion to anything they could actually have done, make their “crimes” as a people the source of all the nation’s woes, and make them, as a people, illegal. Granted, he didn’t start any of that into motion, but he did bring it from the political racist fringes into official White House policy and ramped it up.

My point is that sometimes such comparisons are necessary if we’re going to prevent the mistakes of the past from happening again. You know, “never again.”

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

"They didn't seek to divide Germans into two halves but to unite all Germans"

"Of course there were also German enemies, socialists and communists, German Jews and more"

You refuted yourself in the same post.

No, you misunderstand. Trump, Chavez, Orban and Erdogan seek to have 50% plus one vote, anything beyond that is a burden. Of course they don't go quite as far since one needs to have a margin of error built in, but their reach falls well shy of 60%.

Two examples from the past several months:

Orban - 49.77%, twisted electoral system to be sufficient for a supermajority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungar...election,_2018

Erdogan - 52.59%, with severely slanted playing field, some support was also recieved by allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkis...election,_2018

Trump is in the same boat as these two. Chavez won greater percentages in part due to having the fortune of ruling during an oil boom and in part because democratic process in Venezuela was compromised more and more severely than in Hungary or Turkey, but he never tried to win over the opposition.

Hitler on the other hand worked to be geniunely popular with everyone. It didn't work with everyone of course, but he tried to be the Chancellor of all Germans (excluding Jews whom he didn't consider as human, let alone German). He failed of course and he had many who were too vocal killed obviously, but his core intent was different, which in turn also made him far more powerful.

I'm not saying this to show these clowns are somehow worse than Hitler, they aren't. I'm saying this to show there is notable difference between them. Truth to be told totalitarians are worse than mere authoritarians to begin with.

McHrozni