• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sieg Heil! Donald, Mein Fuhrer

Grim17 said:
Did trump say that because he hates Muslims, or did he have a particular reason for saying that?
Answer: He said it because nearly every terrorist attack that has taken place in the world in this millennium, has been done by Muslims in the name of Islam.
Click to expand...

Errr...a millennium is a long time and there has been plenty of others who have committed acts that would qualify as terrorism. I will say that, right now, there is a very real problem in modern Islam and ignoring those real issues isn't very smart. However, we can do our part by not contributing to it (e.g. destabilizing countries like Syria and Libya). We can also not give in to fear and not target any specific group. In a free society, there is inherent risk. If you put the mechanisms in place to target Muslims today, then you open the door for targeting other groups tomorrow.

We can simply slow down the immigration inflow, from all places.
 
beerftw said:
Godwins law is breaking records, time is no longer needed, it is there from the start.
Click to expand...

The article makes a good point. Sieg Heil!
 
Fishking said:
Errr...a millennium is a long time and there has been plenty of others who have committed acts that would qualify as terrorism. I will say that, right now, there is a very real problem in modern Islam and ignoring those real issues isn't very smart. However, we can do our part by not contributing to it (e.g. destabilizing countries like Syria and Libya). We can also not give in to fear and not target any specific group. In a free society, there is inherent risk. If you put the mechanisms in place to target Muslims today, then you open the door for targeting other groups tomorrow.

We can simply slow down the immigration inflow, from all places.
Click to expand...

My only point was that Trump's statements aren't bigotry, but about protecting America against terrorism.

and btw I said "this millennium", which is only 16 years old.
 
cpwill said:
It's been a crazy year. If ever there was an option for the long shot, it's the one where both major candidates are deeply unpopular.

But that's also irrelevant. I don't support people because they have power. I support them when I think they are right.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The political reality is that you will get Hillary elected, regardless of principle. I not a big Trump fan, but Hillary is ****ing dangerous on steroids.
 
American said:
The political reality is that you will get Hillary elected, regardless of principle.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's her fan's responsibility, not mine. The mathematical reality is that, if a vote for someone other than Trump is a vote for Hillary, then a vote for someone other than Hillary is also a vote for Trump. (So hey - there's a vote for Trump for you :))

I not a big Trump fan, but Hillary is ****ing dangerous on steroids.
Click to expand...

Both of them are destructive and dangerous. But Hillary is dangerous within normal parameters - we'll get four more years of the Obama administration, except tempered by Hillary's caution and need to focus-group-test everything. Trump, in contrast, is belligerent, thin-skinned, narcissistic, and over-reacts before he can think (if he ever thinks about issues, which is questionable). Hillary is continued-slide dangerous. Trump is insane-angry-moron-dangerous. I have zero intention of helping to hunt down and murder women and children in the future, and zero intention of voting for a man who would order me to do so.
 
Grim17 said:
I hate to say this, but in recent years it's no longer a question of "which one is the best candidate".

We all know that it will come down to either Hillary or Trump becoming the next president, so in my view a person needs to ask themselves "which candidate would be worse for America". When each person determines which candidate that is, then their job is to vote against that person.

The only way to vote against Hillary, is to vote for Trump, and the only way to vote against Trump, is to vote for Hillary. Casting a vote for anyone else but those 2, or not voting at all accomplishes nothing, and is in effect, casting a vote for the worse candidate... Because the only way the worse candidate loses, is if the other candidate wins.

.
Click to expand...

I actually wanted to vote for Romney, so no, in 2012 it wasn't the lesser of 2 evils for me. I believed then and now he would make a great president.

I won't cast a vote for Clinton and I won't cast a vote for Trump. It does accomplish something. It enables me to sleep well and look at myself in the mirror in the mornings knowing I didn't compromise my values in any way.
 
"Sieg Heil! Donald, Mein Fuhrer"

Why does politics cause so many people to drop over the edge?
 
tres borrachos said:
I won't cast a vote for Clinton and I won't cast a vote for Trump. It does accomplish something. It enables me to sleep well and look at myself in the mirror in the mornings knowing I didn't compromise my values in any way.
Click to expand...

It accomplishes nothing and neither does voting. Voting appears not to fix anything. I don't vote either but not so that I can sleep better. I don't vote because it is a waste of my time.
 
cpwill said:
Nope. That's her fan's responsibility, not mine. The mathematical reality is that, if a vote for someone other than Trump is a vote for Hillary, then a vote for someone other than Hillary is also a vote for Trump. (So hey - there's a vote for Trump for you :))



Both of them are destructive and dangerous. But Hillary is dangerous within normal parameters - we'll get four more years of the Obama administration, except tempered by Hillary's caution and need to focus-group-test everything. Trump, in contrast, is belligerent, thin-skinned, narcissistic, and over-reacts before he can think (if he ever thinks about issues, which is questionable). Hillary is continued-slide dangerous. Trump is insane-angry-moron-dangerous. I have zero intention of helping to hunt down and murder women and children in the future, and zero intention of voting for a man who would order me to do so.
Click to expand...

Your logic fails because the Democrats walk in lockstep no matter what; and anyone even contemplating going astray gets shot in the face jerked back inline. The Republicans allow their members to vote their conscience. Just watch, Bernie voters will become Hillary voters in the end.
 
Fishking said:
But before he gained supreme power.
Click to expand...

Remember the old saying, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Think about the obvious implication of that saying - that one can be completely uncorrupted BEFORE one gains power, for with power comes corruption.

Take a young soldier who is very, very bitter at the tragic, utterly meaningless loss of millions of his fellow soldiers, and at the humiliating sanctions forced on his nation and his people at the Treaty of Versailles...and THEN those sanctions (including the forced payment of reparations) continued even in the depths of the Weimar Republic's devaluation of the Deutsche Mark...

...and then give him power.

There's quite a few sources online to see what his younger life was like - he was a rebellious young man, conflicted strongly with his father, didn't finish high school, even became homeless for a while, among other things. Frankly, I've seen many a young man who faced the same kind of crap over the years, who would come into the Navy pissed off at the world (and more than a few were racist like myself when I was young)...but with patience and good leadership and mentorship would become doggone good sailors.

But the difference lay in the fact that when Hitler joined the military as a rebellious (and racist) young man, he faced horrors and (what he believed were) injustices against his fellow soldiers that beyond what almost anyone on active duty knows today - and if you don't believe me, study WWI, what the life really was like in the trenches. It was much more terrible than our much-more-mobile warfare today. Again, that was followed by the idiocy of the Treaty of Versailles and the Weimar Republic.

Again, I see no indication that he was worse than any other snot-nosed teenaged guy who's pissed off at the world (as so many are). The only difference is what he lived through and was forced to see during WWI...and what came after. There's a quote by FDR that applies: "True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."
 
Grim17 said:
This is a classic example of exactly how some people will twist things in order to prop up their political beliefs.

This started with Redress saying "As bad as Trump is, he is not a ****ing nazi."

That was a statement about the candidate, Donald Trump.

To that, you responded with: "In the beginning, Hitler wasn't as bad as Hitler would one day become."

Saying "In the beginning" as it relates to the comment by Redress, has to mean in the beginning of Hitler's political career, when he was trying to gain the political support of the people of Germany. It was an implied comparison between Trump's public words as a politician/political candidate, and Hitler's public words as a politician/political candidate.

Since several people (including myself) blew that comparison completely out of the water, by showing that Hitler preached the same hateful nonsense long before he ever stepped up to the podium, you have attempted to move the goalpost by pretending your comment was about Hitler prior to WWI, 15 years before becoming chancellor of Germany... a comparison that not only makes no sense in the context of the conversation, but couldn't have been the comparison you made in the first place, because such a comparison would have been absolutely irrelevant.

Why can't you be ****ing be honest?

.
Click to expand...

I didn't move the goalpost. You decided to make a strawman...probably because you really didn't grasp what I meant to begin with, much less what informed my point of view. Remember, I'm retired Navy...which means I've led many a young snot-nosed kid and watched them grow. Go talk to retired military men - heck, you yourself may be one for all I know - and most of them will tell you that what they miss most is guiding the younger soldiers and sailors and watching them grow.

That also means that I've seen more than a few who were the classic snot-nosed-kid-pissed-off-at-the-world, but who had real potential...but whose hopes for a good career were ruined by crappy leadership, by a senior enlisted who didn't know how to properly lead and mold the kid to become a good sailor. Looking back at Hitler's early life, I see nothing different from many of the kids who joined the Navy because that was their last shot at living a decent life...

...but, as I point out in greater detail in #213, what he went through in WWI and what followed...such has a great traumatic effect on someone's life, and engenders bitterness on a grand scale. Take a kid like the one I describe above, expose him to the horrors and insanity of trench warfare (which really is much worse than what most military today ever see), humiliate him and his entire nation and society, shove him and everyone he knows into the depths of economic deflation...

...and then give him power. And watch power corrupt, and absolute power corrupt absolutely.
 
American said:
Your logic fails because the Democrats walk in lockstep no matter what; and anyone even contemplating going astray gets shot in the face jerked back inline. The Republicans allow their members to vote their conscience. Just watch, Bernie voters will become Hillary voters in the end.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in lockstep, which is why democrats are the party that have already picked their candidate, while republicans still have meaningful contests...oh wait, that is backwards. Well, I am sure republicans are not going to rally behind their pick...oh wait, that didn't work either. Looks like you mixed up democrats and republicans again.
 
American said:
I have lots of friends who will not vote for Trump.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a convincing defense of your comments...:roll:



In case you missed it, that wa really heavy sarcasm...
 
American said:
Your logic fails because the Democrats walk in lockstep no matter what
Click to expand...

That's interesting to hear. Does President Al Gore share that opinion?

Regardless, the logic continues to hold - the failed application of a binary model to a non-binary question continues to provide entertainingly bad analysis. A vote for a third party is neither a vote for Hillary nor a vote for Trump - it is only a vote for that third party.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Remember the old saying, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Think about the obvious implication of that saying - that one can be completely uncorrupted BEFORE one gains power, for with power comes corruption.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm incorrect, but as I understand it, that wasn't what Lord Acton meant. He was referring to the corruption of those around and seeking to support the individual with power.

So, for example, Hillary being corrupt because she can wouldn't be an example of what he was talking about. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz doing her best to toss the race to Hillary because she wishes to be in Hillary's good graces is. Republicans having caucuses isn't an example of what he's talking about - but Republicans rushing to ditch any pretense of holding to the values that they claimed to hold to before in order to support Trump is.
 
cpwill said:
Perhaps I'm incorrect, but as I understand it, that wasn't what Lord Acton meant. He was referring to the corruption of those around and seeking to support the individual with power.

So, for example, Hillary being corrupt because she can wouldn't be an example of what he was talking about. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz doing her best to toss the race to Hillary because she wishes to be in Hillary's good graces is. Republicans having caucuses isn't an example of what he's talking about - but Republicans rushing to ditch any pretense of holding to the values that they claimed to hold to before in order to support Trump is.
Click to expand...

But you're still missing the obvious implication of the statement - that if power corrupts, then one who is previously uncorrupted can be corrupted by power.
 
cpwill said:
That's interesting to hear. Does President Al Gore share that opinion?

Regardless, the logic continues to hold - the failed application of a binary model to a non-binary question continues to provide entertainingly bad analysis. A vote for a third party is neither a vote for Hillary nor a vote for Trump - it is only a vote for that third party.
Click to expand...

Did Dems vote for anyone besides Algore?
 
 
calamity said:
Click to expand...


Most of those quotes are vague and silly enough, and even occasionally accurate.

Like "it's fortunate for governments that people don't think" well, yeah. That's the sort of crack a conservative might make about the government. (sheeple, etc.)

"Great liars are also great magicians." Yeah, I guess you can say that. People pull the wool over your eyes and all that.

The green sky -> sterilization thing doesn't make any sense to me, though :p

Point being, just because Hitler said something doesn't mean it's inherently bad. If Adolf Hitler said "fried chicken wings are delicious," I'd respond "Hell yeah they are, Hitler!" And then I'd reach for a brick.
 
Deuce said:
Most of those quotes are vague and silly enough, and even occasionally accurate.

Like "it's fortunate for governments that people don't think" well, yeah. That's the sort of crack a conservative might make about the government. (sheeple, etc.)

"Great liars are also great magicians." Yeah, I guess you can say that. People pull the wool over your eyes and all that.

The green sky -> sterilization thing doesn't make any sense to me, though :p

Point being, just because Hitler said something doesn't mean it's inherently bad. If Adolf Hitler said "fried chicken wings are delicious," I'd respond "Hell yeah they are, Hitler!" And then I'd reach for a brick.
Click to expand...

I'll give you this. If you ask Bernie supporters similarly framed questions about Stalin, they'd probably defend him too.


I'm really hating this election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom