McConnell, Pelosi dispute Trump, vow peaceful power transfer

[joko104]

Looks like you have taken Trump's Plan B to ursurp the vote, hook, line and sinker. Vlad would be proud. At least you never need worry of being accused of posting anything you thought of.

Such is always an ignorant mindless message.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Whoa...somebody must have been on drugs (or maybe just asleep) during history class. There appears to be a bit of confusion over which groups were communists and which groups were Nazis.

Billions have been spent on ONE PIECE of historical revisionism:
Muddying and blurring the political definition of fascism.

Fascism is not an extreme left-wing system and never has been, that would be communism.

 

[NewfieMom]

democrats are stupid by nature, it's why they are democrats.

"Communist" is a fairly broad term that encompasses a wide range of groups, all loosely related to Marxism and socialism. This include the Hegelians, Lenin's Bolsheviks, the Menschoviks, Maoists, the Castroites, the Chavez adherents, the American democrats, and the Shining Path of Central America.

Nazism is a specific form of socialism that was based on the cult of personality surrounding Adolf Hitler. Like all forms of socialism it was an authoritarian system with rigid oppression of the masses. It required individuals to subvert their personal goals in favor of the Reich, much like democrats demand personal concerns be subverted to those of the collective or communist. Individual liberty under Nazism was removed in favor of group privilege, Aryans had privilege others were denied, much like democrats grant LGBTQ privilege denied to less favored groups. The Nazis forcible repressed religious freedom, and were strong proponents of the "Bake the Cake Christian" view that democrats hold. And of course the Nazis were violent, with Brown Shirts roaming cities assaulting people, burning buildings, raping women (and sometimes homeless men) just like the democrat's ANTIFA troops do.


Does that explain it for you?

It wasn't I who needed an explanation and if I had needed one I would have sought one from someone a bit more erudite than you. And I certainly did not need a history lesson. Your description of Weimar and Nazi Germany is a bit off. Who were these "Aryans" you mention? And you act as if "the Brown Shirts" roamed the streets of all of Germany from the early 1920's until 1945. They (the SA) were merely one of Hitler's gangs in one small area when he started to rise to power. He played them off against other groups he used, leveraging one against the other to maximize his power. His beloved SA (the Brown Shirts) grew in power and in the areas in which they operated but when they became too powerful, they were purged by the SS (the black shirts) on The Night of Long Knives.
Hitler's Germany was not static.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

It wasn't I who needed an explanation and if I had needed one I would have sought one from someone a bit more erudite than you. And I certainly did not need a history lesson. Your description of Weimar and Nazi Germany is a bit off. Who were these "Aryans" you mention? And you act as if "the Brown Shirts" roamed the streets of all of Germany from the early 1920's until 1945. They (the SA) were merely one of Hitler's gangs in one small area when he started to rise to power. He played them off against other groups he used, leveraging one against the other to maximize his power. His beloved SA (the Brown Shirts) grew in power and in the areas in which they operated but when they became too powerful, they were purged by the SS (the black shirts) on The Night of Long Knives.
Hitler's Germany was not static.

They think Nazis were socialists cause it’s in the name. Even history is distorted just to own the libs.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It wasn't I who needed an explanation and if I had needed one I would have sought one from someone a bit more erudite than you. And I certainly did not need a history lesson. Your description of Weimar and Nazi Germany is a bit off. Who were these "Aryans" you mention? And you act as if "the Brown Shirts" roamed the streets of all of Germany from the early 1920's until 1945. They (the SA) were merely one of Hitler's gangs in one small area when he started to rise to power. He played them off against other groups he used, leveraging one against the other to maximize his power. His beloved SA (the Brown Shirts) grew in power and in the areas in which they operated but when they became too powerful, they were purged by the SS (the black shirts) on The Night of Long Knives.
Hitler's Germany was not static.

The Night of the Long Knives was in fact Hitler's specifically planned move to the political Right because the SA WAS in fact the (authoritarian) "leftist" faction. The Strasser brothers learned just how serious Hitler was about removing Left influence from his party.
Gregor Strasser was assassinated and Otto barely escaped to exile with his life and not much more.

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism".

Alan Bullock, "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny", New York: HarperCollins, 1971

 

[NewfieMom]

The Night of the Long Knives was in fact Hitler's specifically planned move to the political Right because the SA WAS in fact the (authoritarian) "leftist" faction. The Strasser brothers learned just how serious Hitler was about removing Left influence from his party.

I appreciate your well-reasoned response to my comment, however I disagree with you slightly. I do not believe that the problem posed by the SA for Hitler was that its politics diverged from his. The SA had simply played its role: getting him into power. It had become too powerful in its own right and was a threat to Hitler given that Hindenburg was still President and had the power to remove him from office as chancellor. Hindenburg wanted the SA removed. Hitler was feeling threatened by the SA. So he used the SS to get rid of a group that had nothing more to offer and that was only standing in the way of his "legitimacy".

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I appreciate your well-reasoned response to my comment, however I disagree with you slightly. I do not believe that the problem posed by the SA for Hitler was that its politics diverged from his. The SA had simply played its role: getting him into power. It had become too powerful in its own right and was a threat to Hitler given that Hindenburg was still President and had the power to remove him from office as chancellor. Hindenburg wanted the SA removed. Hitler was feeling threatened by the SA. So he used the SS to get rid of a group that had nothing more to offer and that was only standing in the way of his "legitimacy".

Nationalsozialistische Briefe, discussed notions of class conflict, wealth redistribution and a possible alliance with the Soviet Union. His 1930 follow-up Ministersessel oder Revolution (Cabinet Seat or Revolution) went further by attacking Hitler's betrayal of the socialist aspect of Nazism as well as criticizing the notion of the Führerprinzip.

Socialism is supposedly founded on the idea of human equality, but Nazism is founded on the exact opposite notion, radical (and racialized) human inequality, and in fact Hitler said many times that he believed he had been put on earth to destroy the idea of human equality.
He regularly associated international socialism with Jewish conspiracy, and his financial support came from traditional right wing sources - big banks and industry. Indeed, the two Nazi electoral campaigns of 1933 were funded mainly by the industrialists of the Ruhr valley, who opened their pockets to the Nazis only after Hermann Goering personally assured them in a series of meetings that there was NOTHING socialist about National Socialism. Prescott Bush, Lindbergh, Henry Ford and many other rightists on the international stage admired Hitler precisely because they saw him as the man to smash socialism and the left. And that he most certainly did in Germany: his first action after the Enabling Act, giving dictatorial powers, was passed in 1933 was to ban trade unions.
Winston Churchill was almost totally isolated in the British Conservative party during most of the 1930s, precisely because he saw Hitler as a threat rather than an anti-communist strongman. At one point, Churchill had to resort to getting his views out via "The Daily Worker", the British Communist Party newsletter!
Now the American right tries to rewrite history and pretend that they were not complicit in this appeasement, or even that the Nazism they once collaborated with so much was really a form of "socialism".
It wasn't, not in any degree.
If Hitler had been a socialist, he would never, ever have been bankrolled, appeased and admired by centers of conservative power in the way that he was.

Himmler, well before the Wannsee Conference, and after the "Night of the Long Knives", which eventuated the disposal of any and all left-sympathizing party members, including Ernst Roehm, about 1938, enunciated to a mass meeting of the SchutzStaffel (S.S.):
"We are of the right and of order. We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks, and liberal democracies as one sweeps away flies."

As further proof, in the 1970's, neo-Strasserite figures removed Adolf von Thadden from power and after his departure the party became stronger in condemning Hitler for what it saw as his move away from socialism in order to court business and army leaders.

 

[NewfieMom]

Socialism is supposedly founded on the idea of human equality, but Nazism is founded on the exact opposite notion, radical (and racialized) human inequality, and in fact Hitler said many times that he believed he had been put on earth to destroy the idea of human equality.

He regularly associated international socialism with Jewish conspiracy, and his financial support came from traditional right wing sources - big banks and industry. Indeed, the two Nazi electoral campaigns of 1933 funded mainly by the industrialists of the Ruhr valley, who opened their pockets to the Nazis only after Hermann Goering personally assured them in a series of meetings that there was NOTHING socialist about National Socialism.

I completely agree with you and think that you described the situation of who backed Hitler very neatly. I could never have done as good a job. I also could not have sprinkled in any German since the little German I once knew I forgot years ago. You are obviously quite familiar with this period in history.

On a slightly different topic, are you familiar with the book on Hitler's younger years Hitler's Vienna by Brigitte Hamann? It was recommended to me and I was about to start reading it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

They think Nazis were socialists cause it’s in the name. Even history is distorted just to own the libs.

If Nazism is of the left then this is Crosby Stills and Nash

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

They think Nazis were socialists cause it’s in the name. Even history is distorted just to own the libs.

This particular item of history is distorted on purpose and for a very good reason, to "inoculate" authoritarian fascists as they attempt to IMPLEMENT IT.
It is the exact same bait and switch Hitler USED by calling HIS party "socialist" - - - IN REVERSE.
And it amazes me that more people do not see right through it.

Hitler used "socialist" the way dish soap companies use "NEW!"

Socialism was indeed "new" in the 1920's and 1930's in Europe and it was portrayed as a "workers" party.
What better scam than for Hitler to use the label to attract workers.
The "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship that uses the word "democratic" the same way.

Today's far Right Trump extremists are desperate to avoid any outward branding markers that tie them to "the fasces".

 

[Aunt Antifa]

This particular item of history is distorted on purpose and for a very good reason, to "inoculate" authoritarian fascists as they attempt to IMPLEMENT IT.
It is the exact same bait and switch Hitler USED by calling HIS party "socialist" - - - IN REVERSE.
And it amazes me that more people do not see right through it.

Hitler used "socialist" the way dish soap companies use "NEW!"

Socialism was indeed "new" in the 1920's and 1930's in Europe and it was portrayed as a "workers" party.
What better scam than for Hitler to use the label to attract workers.
The "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea is an authoritarian dictatorship that uses the word "democratic" the same way.

Today's far Right Trump extremists are desperate to avoid any outward branding markers that tie them to "the fasces".

**** yes thank you thank you thank you. It is so obviously a dumb PR campaign to allow them to be as nazi like as they want now and pretend it’s not like Hitler, the Famous M4A Stan.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

**** yes thank you thank you thank you. It is so obviously a dumb PR campaign to allow them to be as nazi like as they want now and pretend it’s not like Hitler, the Famous M4A Stan.

Think how many times people have been duped into believing revisionist history.

Notable examples of revisionism and negationism include Holocaust denial, Armenian Genocide denial, Lost Cause of the Confederacy, Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, Japanese war crime denial and the denial of Soviet crimes.
Then add in "slavery denialism" the brand new school of thought being hoisted to the fore by Trumpers who say that slavery really wasn't so terrible and that most slaves were happy!
Then add in the raft of N8V American denialism, which purports that American Indian tribes welcomed the civilization of the white tribe.

Fascist denialism first appeared in the mainstream with Jonah Goldberg's book "LIBERAL FASCISM" which he even admits he wrote out of a need for revenge against those who, in his mind, mischaracterized his mother, who advised Linda Tripp.
It then expanded with another heavily debunked writer, Dinesh D'Souza and then found a home with another revisionist by the name of Dennis Prager, who runs a kind of "Trump University in Exile" called PragerU, which is neither accredited or sanctioned by ANY educational institution on the planet.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Think how many times people have been duped into believing revisionist history.

Notable examples of revisionism and negationism include Holocaust denial, Armenian Genocide denial, Lost Cause of the Confederacy, Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, Japanese war crime denial and the denial of Soviet crimes.
Then add in "slavery denialism" the brand new school of thought being hoisted to the fore by Trumpers who say that slavery really wasn't so terrible and that most slaves were happy!
Then add in the raft of N8V American denialism, which purports that American Indian tribes welcomed the civilization of the white tribe.

Fascist denialism first appeared in the mainstream with Jonah Goldberg's book "LIBERAL FASCISM" which he even admits he wrote out of a need for revenge against those who, in his mind, mischaracterized his mother, who advised Linda Tripp.
It then expanded with another heavily debunked writer, Dinesh D'Souza and then found a home with another revisionist by the name of Dennis Prager, who runs a kind of "Trump University in Exile" called PragerU, which is neither accredited or sanctioned by ANY educational institution on the planet.

Sincere question: I have come to the belief that their whole drive behind IT’S A REPUBLIC is literally just tied to...their name. That’s it. That’s as much thought as they’ve given that dumb argument. Tell me I’m RIGHT?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Sincere question: I have come to the belief that their whole drive behind IT’S A REPUBLIC is literally just tied to...their name. That’s it. That’s as much thought as they’ve given that dumb argument. Tell me I’m RIGHT?

I wish. It is directly tied to the denialism I was talking about because quite simply, and I have to believe that you know this, love of democracy automatically REQUIRES hatred of fascism what with them being polar opposites.
So, "the ground must be prepared"...softened if you wish, to make fascism (albeit in disguise as "nationalism" - in this case WHITE nationalism) appear benign and reasonable.

Notice how whenever I or ANYONE encounters the "founding fathers rejected democracy", we immediately point out the proof that the founders were reacting to "Athenian" or "direct" democracy.
And it is true, they DID reject direct democracy because it is too volatile and always leads to mob rule.

But democracy in the United States and in the rest of the free world is not nor has it ever BEEN direct democracy!
Direct (Athenian) democracy has not been fooled with in 2500 years!
Democracy as it exists in the free world today and as it has ALWAYS existed in the free world is REPRESENTATIVE democracy functioning WITHIN the framework of a republic, via THE PEOPLE'S VOTE.
The Founding Fathers cared so much about representative democracy that they DID enshrine it in the Constitution.
The vote of the people IS our democracy, as much of it as the founders wanted and no more.

Notice how whenever I or ANYBODY POINTS OUT the logical fallacy of their "direct democracy" argument by proving there is NO THERE, THERE....the response is crickets.

BINGO!
The entire "founding fathers said this is not a democracy" argument is an attempt to say that democracy is evil.
There is the "softening of the ground" for authoritarianism writ large and in real time.

They are attacking the very thing in our Constitution that enshrines democracy, our representative democracy, our vote,
Eventually if they are allowed to succeed, no one would care about the vote.
Why would they with their strongman in charge? Who would dare to unseat a strongman by such a derelict thing as a democratic voting process? They might just succeed in conditioning the people to reject voting the way they now are conditioned to reject a free press.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Don't forget, in almost every authoritarian dictatorship, voting does not consist of votes for opposing parties but instead a YES or NO vote and very few ever dare to vote NO due to consequences.