The Hill - Why are Democrats glad Trump survived if he’s a Nazi and a threat to our nation?

[MrNiceGuy]

Political campaigns lie. This comes as a shock to no one. But sometimes the lies that campaigns tell are so big, so absurd, that there really should be lasting consequences.

In the presidential campaign, the lie that “Donald Trump is worse than Hitler” is one such lie that should have consequences that ripple well beyond November.


Many Democrats have spent the last eight years calling Trump a Nazi. In truth, many of them have spent the last 24 years calling all Republicans Nazis. Remember “BushHitler?” But oh, they loved John McCain…until he was the Republican presidential nominee. Then he was a Nazi, too.

Mitt Romney had all the edge of a warm glass of milk, but it was apparently a warm glass of Nazi milk. And Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was called a Nazi by Democrats and their media allies during his gubernatorial reelection campaign and during the primaries for this presidential election, just in case he’d won the nomination.

So these guys don’t leave much to chance. They also don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

It’s not unusual to attack your political opponent. It’s less common to tell people you are all that stands between them and the violent death of the republic.

Such unhinged rhetoric has certainly escalated lately. Is it impossible to recognize that all those ridiculous claims that there will be no more elections if Trump wins again might just inspire some unstable person to take matters into his own hands?

If you are willing to call your political opponent literally worse than one of history’s greatest monsters, is it unreasonable to think that at least a handful of your listeners — perhaps a few mentally unstable people with a political obsession — might take you seriously and act to stop the threat?


“Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation,” Biden said just three weeks ago. “That is not hyperbole. He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He is literally a threat to the America that we stand for.”

If you could go back in time and kill Adolf Hitler sometime in the mid-1930s, you would do it, right? So if Biden and Hillary Clinton believe their own assertions that Trump is an existential threat to our nation and our way of life, then how can they be happy that Trump survived the assassination attempt over the weekend? https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4774363-democratic-campaigns-trump-hitler/

Interesting article -- It does make one wonder about issues of incitement, and such. Does rhetoric like this constitute incitement? If not, why not?

 

[ataraxia]

Because they believe in the rule of law and not vigilante justice.

I know, it’s a weird concept for the right. But they might get used to it over time.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Because they believe in the rule of law and not vigilante justice.

I know, it’s a weird concept for the right. But they might get used to it over time.

The article doesn't say that they would support it, just that they wouldn't be happy that Trump survived. That is, if they seriously thought Trump was the Hitleresque threat to our entire way of life that is claimed. I think the point mde in the article is that democrats really don't believe the hyperbole.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

“Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation,” Biden said just three weeks ago. “That is not hyperbole. He’s a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He is literally a threat to the America that we stand for.”


Trump's attempted autogolpe proves this true. The author of the piece is trying to pretend that did not happen.

 

[samiam5211]

You can wish someone was dead without wanting them to be murdered.

 

[ataraxia]

The article doesn't say that they would support it, just that they wouldn't be happy that Trump survived. That is, if they seriously thought Trump was the Hitleresque threat to our entire way of life that is claimed. I think the point mde in the article is that democrats really don't believe the hyperbole.

No they do. But it's far more preferable to let the legal system take its course, as slow and flawed as it may be.

Civilization, modern civil society, systems of law and order, democracy, etc...: all weird newfangled concepts which I am confident will eventually work their way to even the culture of today's right.

I know those with a conservative mindset are generally, by definition, fearful and hostile to new ideas and ways of doing things- but human civilization and systems of law and order have been around for about 6000 years now- you would think it's about time for these ideas to start catching on even with them, no?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The article doesn't say that they would support it, just that they wouldn't be happy that Trump survived. That is, if they seriously thought Trump was the Hitleresque threat to our entire way of life that is claimed. I think the point mde in the article is that democrats really don't believe the hyperbole.

In general, because they think that Trump getting randomly merc'd by a crazy would be extremely dangerous to our democracy as well and a destabilizing event.

I also don't think Trump is LITERALLY Hitler. Like 1:1 as bad.

I think he's using a lot of the same tactics to build support and get elected. I think there are a lot of parallels in the rhetoric. But I don't think he would kill 6 million Jews. I also don't know for a fact that he is competent enough to end democracy in the US. So to me him surviving the assassination is currently the best outcome.

Who knows. Maybe in the future I'll be proved wrong and the entire world will curse that kid for missing his shots. Hopefully it never gets to that point.

 

[lwf]

The article doesn't say that they would support it, just that they wouldn't be happy that Trump survived. That is, if they seriously thought Trump was the Hitleresque threat to our entire way of life that is claimed. I think the point mde in the article is that democrats really don't believe the hyperbole.

There is a vast gulf of difference between a man losing an election and a man losing his life. I'm sure 100% of people surveyed would have rather Adolf Hitler simply been ignored by German society entirely and left to paint in peace, if this was an alternative option to having him murdered in cold blood.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

There is a vast gulf of difference between a man losing an election and a man losing his life. I'm sure 100% of people surveyed would have rather Adolf Hitler simply been ignored by German society entirely and left to paint in peace, if the other option was to have him murdered in cold blood.

I mean, if you really thought that Trump was an existential threat to the country, an existential threat to Democracy itself, and akin to Hitler, would you really be sorry he was offed? I mean - if you REALLY believed that about him.

I wouldn't be in favor of murder, but if It were 1932 and I learned that Hitler had been shot, I'd likely not be unhappy about it. Like, when we learn the head of a terrorist group got offed, are we sad? If one thought someone was REALLY committing treason, selling secrets to a foreign government, in league with a dictator of Russia, desirous of becoming a dictator, and really trying to end democracy, why would one be sad about him taking a bullet?

 

[reflechissez]

Interesting article -- It does make one wonder about issues of incitement, and such. Does rhetoric like this constitute incitement? If not, why not?

TL;DR Don't care.

 

[ataraxia]

I mean, if you really thought that Trump was an existential threat to the country, an existential threat to Democracy itself, and akin to Hitler, would you really be sorry he was offed? I mean - if you REALLY believed that about him.

Only if I knew I couldn't depend on the legal system to take care of it. That's how vigilante justice happens- when the legal system is corrupt and fails, and so people have to take matters into their own hands. But it's not a good approach and often ends up with poor results. Regular justice is better, when the system works.

With Hitler the system failed- or at least he broke it. Will it happen with Trump? I guess we will see.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Because they believe in the rule of law and not vigilante justice.

I know, it’s a weird concept for the right. But they might get used to it over time.

/thread

 

[phoenix2020]

Interesting article -- It does make one wonder about issues of incitement, and such. Does rhetoric like this constitute incitement? If not, why not?

Let’s also remember that they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating… the pets.

 

[lwf]

I mean, if you really thought that Trump was an existential threat to the country, an existential threat to Democracy itself, and akin to Hitler, would you really be sorry he was offed? I mean - if you REALLY believed that about him.

I wouldn't be in favor of murder, but if It were 1932 and I learned that Hitler had been shot, I'd likely not be unhappy about it. Like, when we learn the head of a terrorist group got offed, are we sad? If one thought someone was REALLY committing treason, selling secrets to a foreign government, in league with a dictator of Russia, desirous of becoming a dictator, and really trying to end democracy, why would one be sad about him taking a bullet?

While I would never celebrate an assassination, I think your argument depends on how you define "threat to democracy." I doubt any Democrat views Donald Trump as the same sort of "threat to democracy" in the U.S. that Kim Jong Un is a "threat to democracy" in North Korea. I think Democrats still have faith in the US democratic process in spite of Donald Trump's failed autogolpe, but that putting Donald Trump into office would further erode this faith and would threaten long held democratic policies and institutions to one degree or another. It's fair to refer to that as a "threat to democracy."

 

[Airyaman]

Interesting article -- It does make one wonder about issues of incitement, and such. Does rhetoric like this constitute incitement? If not, why not?

Right winger says what?

We beat our political opponents at the ballot box, not using 2A solutions.

Trump Says Maybe '2nd Amendment People' Can Stop Clinton's Supreme Court Picks

Trump made these remarks today in North Carolina.

abcnews.go.com

 

[eohrnberger]

Interesting article -- It does make one wonder about issues of incitement, and such. Does rhetoric like this constitute incitement? If not, why not?

Form the citation:

"Many Democrats have spent the last eight years calling Trump a Nazi. In truth, many of them have spent the last 24 years calling all Republicans Nazis. Remember “BushHitler?” But oh, they loved John McCain…until he was the Republican presidential nominee. Then he was a Nazi, too."

Quoted for truth.

How can anyone be of the position that the present state of political discourse and US politics isn't directly, either wholly or in large part, to this recurring and consistent bad behavior from Democrats?

 

[lwf]

Form the citation:

"Many Democrats have spent the last eight years calling Trump a Nazi. In truth, many of them have spent the last 24 years calling all Republicans Nazis. Remember “BushHitler?” But oh, they loved John McCain…until he was the Republican presidential nominee. Then he was a Nazi, too."

Quoted for truth.

How can anyone be of the position that the present state of political discourse and US politics isn't directly, either wholly or in large part, to this recurring and consistent bad behavior from Democrats?

Define "many Democrats." More than a dozen? You could also say that "many Republicans" spend the last 24 years calling all black people racial epithets. If I can find some that did this, does that make painting the entire party with this broad brush rational?

 

[eohrnberger]

Define "many Democrats." More than a dozen?

Yes, quite prevalent.

You could also say that "many Republicans" spend the last 24 years calling all black people racial epithets.

No, I don't think so, certainly not as prevalent as the above.

If I can find some that did this, does that make painting the entire party with this broad brush rational?

The article's premise was based on 'many', and here you are demanding specifics.
I'd say contact the articles author, if you haven't been paying attention. enough to have seen the blatantly obvious.

 

[lwf]

Yes, quite prevalent.


No, I don't think so, certainly not as prevalent as the above.


The article's premise was based on 'many', and here you are demanding specifics.
I'd say contact the articles author, if you haven't been paying attention. enough to have seen the blatantly obvious.

I dispute that many Democrats call all Republicans Nazis. I think just as many Republicans call all non-whites racial epithets. I think the author is making a giant assumption and painting an entire political party with a broad brush.

 

[eohrnberger]

I dispute that many Democrats call all Republicans Nazis. I think just as many Republicans call all non-whites racial epithets. I think the author is making a giant assumption and painting an entire political party with a broad brush.

Just as many Republican use the N-word, but painting the author is painting democrats an overly broad brush.
Errr . . . .

 

[Luce]

This is an easy one.

My brother answered this down in the blog section.

 

[Luce]

I mean, if you really thought that Trump was an existential threat to the country, an existential threat to Democracy itself, and akin to Hitler, would you really be sorry he was offed? I mean - if you REALLY believed that about him.

I wouldn't be in favor of murder, but if It were 1932 and I learned that Hitler had been shot, I'd likely not be unhappy about it. Like, when we learn the head of a terrorist group got offed, are we sad? If one thought someone was REALLY committing treason, selling secrets to a foreign government, in league with a dictator of Russia, desirous of becoming a dictator, and really trying to end democracy, why would one be sad about him taking a bullet?

So this thread is just one giant, poorly-constructed strawman.

Dismissed with the appropriate levels of scorn and ridicule.

 

[JasperL]

Interesting article -- It does make one wonder about issues of incitement, and such. Does rhetoric like this constitute incitement? If not, why not?

Not really. The part you quotes starts with a gigantic straw man or red herring.

the lie that “Donald Trump is worse than Hitler” is one such lie that should have consequences that ripple well beyond November.

Of course that quote is sourced to no one, but I suppose someone on the interwebs said it, so therefore why not use it as the opening for an entire article of straw men? I mean, who should suffer consequences for exercising their right to free speech? I thought right wingers were all for that kind of thing, such as when actual neo-Nazis march or wear shirts, 6MWNE or whatever, implying killing 6 million Jews weren't enough. Is that incitement, wearing such a shirt? Should the person be arrested?

As to claims, sourced in the article, that Biden and others believe Trump is a threat to democracy, because he literally tried to overthrow the results of the last election, that's also an exercise of free speech. Is that bad if someone like me believes he's a threat, and says it? Should the government arrest Biden? Why or why not?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Not really. The part you quotes starts with a gigantic straw man or red herring.

the lie that “Donald Trump is worse than Hitler” is one such lie that should have consequences that ripple well beyond November.

Of course that quote is sourced to no one, but I suppose someone on the interwebs said it, so therefore why not use it as the opening for an entire article of straw men? I mean, who should suffer consequences for exercising their right to free speech? I thought right wingers were all for that kind of thing, such as when actual neo-Nazis march or wear shirts, 6MWNE or whatever, implying killing 6 million Jews weren't enough. Is that incitement, wearing such a shirt? Should the person be arrested?

You'd have to answer that question yourself. Is it incitement, wearing such a shirt?

As to claims, sourced in the article, that Biden and others believe Trump is a threat to democracy, because he literally tried to overthrow the results of the last election, that's also an exercise of free speech. Is that bad if someone like me believes he's a threat, and says it? Should the government arrest Biden? Why or why not?

Biden campaign compares Trump to Hitler in quotes graphic https://www.axios.com/2023/12/20/trump-hitler-biden-campaign-comparison and Biden argued Trump is an existential threat to America - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bid...threat-america-trump-point/story?id=105401847​

US President Joe Biden has said it was a mistake for him to say "time to put Trump in a bullseye", days before Saturday's assassination attempt on his election rival. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd1rzde0n4do (what would Democrats be saying if Trump had said that his opponent should have a bullseye put on him?")

Top House Democrats compare Trump’s rise to Hitler’s https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/james-clyburn-trump-hitler-comparison/index.html​

Representative Hank Johnson compared Trump to Hitler in Foreboding Speech - https://rollcall.com/2019/01/03/rep-hank-johnson-compares-trump-to-hitler-in-a-foreboding-speech/

I mean, the question is posed to you - whether you think that is a kind of incitement.

Your answer seems to be that Biden and others doing this kind of thing is not incitement, it just makes someone like you believe Trump is a threat. Fair enough. So clearly you should see the point, when compared to what people allege Trump said regarding 1/6/21. Trump said the election was a fraud, and he told his fans to demonstrate peacefully and patriotically to have their voices heard and "fight like hell" to save their country. That is what most Democrats around here say is incitement to riot and insurrection. So, why isn't telling people Trump is hitler and an existential threat to America and the like, that he's going to be a dictator, and therefore it's time to put a "bullseye" on him.... why is that not an incitement to kill or attack or harm Trump?

For me - I don't think either is an incitement, whether to riot or to assassination. But, I would like to hear the distinction someone might make if the say that Trump's comments were an incitement, but Biden's and other Democrats' comments were not.

 

[bomberfox]

Survive or not survive. Not really my problem.