KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

The Trump thread: All things Donald

joan1984 · 277334

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

ChirpingGirl

  • Guest
Reply #520 on: June 12, 2016, 12:25:49 AM
How does one spell Trump correctly?

H I T L E R.

The similarities are coalescing.

I really love how people say this and not know anything about Hitler.

No argument, nothing to base it on: HITLER. Just say Hitler and that'll shut 'em up. While not knowing anything about Hitler except what they've been told to know.

Ok, Lois and bullies... insult me and call me names now.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 12:27:29 AM by ChirpingGirl »



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #521 on: June 12, 2016, 01:09:11 AM
What do you know about Hitler?  My father fought in World War II.  I was raised on stories concerning the rise of the NAZI's and how evil they were.  I met some of Hitler's victims. So I know of Hitler.

Hitler came to power by pushing the same racist and nationalist themes that Trump is now using.  He says stuff like: "Unemployment and crime are all the fault of the Mexicans."  Hitler said the same thing about the Jews.  It is called scapegoating.

The real reason for unemployment?  Because people like Trump has exported all our good paying jobs overseas.  He is playing you for a sucker.



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #522 on: June 12, 2016, 02:15:13 AM
How does one spell Trump correctly?

H I T L E R.

The similarities are coalescing.

I really love how people say this and not know anything about Hitler.

No argument, nothing to base it on: HITLER. Just say Hitler and that'll shut 'em up. While not knowing anything about Hitler except what they've been told to know.

Ok, Lois and bullies... insult me and call me names now.
ok.

You really don't know the depth of my knowledge. Nor that teaching a pig to sing is both fruitless and it irritates the pig.

What you should have said, if you were interested in why I posted that, is to ask why or to challenge the assertion, not to cast an insult upon me, as you so readily accused me of being ready to do.

But I understand if you aren't competent to engage in debate.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,157
    • Woos/Boos: +3181/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #523 on: June 12, 2016, 10:13:37 PM

I really love how people say this and not know anything about Hitler.

No argument, nothing to base it on: HITLER. Just say Hitler and that'll shut 'em up. While not knowing anything about Hitler except what they've been told to know.



While I suspect Katie's knowledge of Hitler and Nazi German is quite extensive, I agree with you that invoking Hitler -- i.e. Godwin's Law -- is one of the lamest and laziest form of responses, as if, as you point out, simply invoking his name as a comparison ends every argument.

"That'll shut 'em up" is a perfect way of putting it.





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #524 on: June 12, 2016, 10:26:17 PM
Except that Goodwin's Law was not meant to prevent calling a real fascist a fascist.  It states simply: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler approaches."

I see no problem with comparing Trump's strategies and actions to those of Hitler.  Because those that refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.  Forewarned is forearmed ....  insert additional idioms here.




Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,157
    • Woos/Boos: +3181/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #525 on: June 13, 2016, 03:00:25 PM

Except that Goodwin's Law was not meant to prevent calling a real fascist a fascist.  It states simply: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazism or Hitler approaches."


Except Katie did not call Trump a fascist. She called him:


H I T L E R.


Her post was a perfect, textbook example of Godwin's Law.



I see no problem with comparing Trump's strategies and actions to those of Hitler. 


That's great. However, the whole point of Godwin's Law is invoking Hitler as a comparison to the person in question -- without bothering to make the slightest effort to verify or support the comparison. You wrote, "I see no problem with comparing Trump's strategies and actions to those of Hitler," yet you made not a single comparison of Trump's "strategies and actions" to Hitler's. 

You and Katie both invoked Hitler in defining Trump. In what ways is Trump equal to Hitler (Katie), or like Hitler (you)? Is it because he's a "bully"? Well, being a bully doesn't make one Hitler. And there have been presidents that were far greater bullies than Trump. FDR and Lyndon Johnson make Trump look like a weenie in that department. Is it because he's a "racist"? Being racist doesn't make one Hitler. And there have been presidents that were hardcore racists. Woodrow Wilson was a dedicated, self-proclaimed White Supremacist, and he makes Trump look like a progressive liberal in this area.   

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, neither as a person nor as a potential president. But a big reason for Trump's success thus far can be attributed to the Left's insistence on name-calling (and Godwin-ing), rather than sober analysis. If you listen to what those on the Left are saying, we shouldn't vote for Trump because he's a meanie; and we should vote for Clinton because she's not Trump. And that's the worse way to get people to get off their butts and vote on Election Day.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,157
    • Woos/Boos: +3181/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #526 on: June 13, 2016, 06:35:06 PM

It reveals more about the terms in which you view him than it implies anything about the man.



Yes, exactly.





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #527 on: June 13, 2016, 07:10:51 PM
Let me be clear then. The targeting of a group as inherently evil, the implied view that Trump will act without congress (something that he implies in most of his statements that he will act where others will not), the values of nationalism and defining those narrowly to apply only to a select group that seems to be white heterosexual, and male, the implied condemnation of those without morals (which seem to only be present in Trump), the claim that he doesn't care if people don't subscribe to his policies is toough because you will live under them regardless of their legality under the Constitution, these are the similarities which I see coalescing and mirroring National Socialism.  

Forgive me if I accused him of demogogary and didn't explicitly call him a demagogue, but used the association of the most infamous of historical demagogues to label him as such.

There is a great deal of emotional context in association with calling him a fascist, which he seems very much to be.

How far fetched is it to think that President Trump would have little concern about ordering internment camps for Muslims or Hispanics?

There are a lot of people who are eager to support an authoritarian candidate. I am sorry to say that mr. Trump would likely seek to limit 1st amendment rights in terms of what people and the press can say about him.

"A rose by any other other name would still smell as sweet."
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 07:14:44 PM by Katiebee »

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #528 on: June 13, 2016, 07:26:24 PM

It reveals more about the terms in which you view him than it implies anything about the man.



Yes, exactly.




And in the final analysis, that view is based upon the man's own statements. His libertarian views are about as firm as quicksand, and as changeable as the weather, more so than other politicians.

He is damned by his own words.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,989
    • Woos/Boos: +1719/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #529 on: June 13, 2016, 11:19:26 PM
Trump is just another business man who thinks running a country is like running a corporation.  It just won't work. A CEO has stockholders he must answer to so all of his decisions are based on getting the most bang for the buck.  In politics, one has to be able to negotiate with members who have opposing views. Trump spouts simple solutions to complicated problems. In reality, again, his solutions will never be enacted.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #530 on: June 14, 2016, 02:25:37 AM

And in the final analysis, that view is based upon the man's own statements. His libertarian views are about as firm as quicksand, and as changeable as the weather, more so than other politicians.

He is damned by his own words.

So true!



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #531 on: June 14, 2016, 02:29:22 AM
That's great. However, the whole point of Godwin's Law is invoking Hitler as a comparison to the person in question -- without bothering to make the slightest effort to verify or support the comparison. You wrote, "I see no problem with comparing Trump's strategies and actions to those of Hitler," yet you made not a single comparison of Trump's "strategies and actions" to Hitler's. 

Uh, yes I did.  I compared Hitler's scapegoating of the Jews to Trump's scapegoating of Mexicans.



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,157
    • Woos/Boos: +3181/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #532 on: June 14, 2016, 08:20:05 PM

I get that about half of American politics revolves around devising worst case scenarios regarding the opposition being in power while offering best case scenarios regarding your preferred party being in power but it seems especially silly in Trump's case, when he is so easily criticised for real things he actually said and claims to intend to do.


Yes, this is the point that I tried, and clearly failed, to make. And it's probably more than half of American politics...

This Board, though a tiny presence in a dusty little corner of the Interweb, is something of a microcosm of the tenor of American political debate. And it's somewhat worse than what GB describes, since the effort seems to be demonizing the opposition candidate while holding up your candidate as nowhere near as bad by comparison.

Perhaps more to the point, most posts/editorial/op-eds on this topic ignore the political system that serves as the context for these dire predictions. For example, the easiest and most obvious example of why the Trump=Hitler assertion is silly is the fact that Trump is attempting to attain the presidency via the method that has been used, consistently and successfully, for over 220 years. He's not attempting a coup, he's not trying to illegally (or unconstitutionally) seize power, and, doomsday predictions from Lois, Katie, and others on the Left notwithstanding, he won't run roughshod over the Constitution (e.g. dictating policy via presidential fiat) if he does win the presidency.

The most salient point to all of this, as I alluded to above, is the fact that the Democrats have, for the most part, been denigrating Trump to hold up Clinton as a least worst alternative. And few voters will be energized by a "nowhere near as bad" or "far less worse" candidate.

And failing to energize voters -- both her base and the "undecideds" with no strict party affiliations -- could translate into a low voter turnout on Election Day. Meanwhile Trump, despite defections from GOP mainstays, is, in fact, energizing voters. Will he succeed in roping in enough voters? A low turnout on Election Day is certainly one path to a Trump victory in November.





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #533 on: June 15, 2016, 12:45:38 AM
 Evidently everyone seems to have forgotten one salient fact about Herr Hitler. He was democratically elected. He  achieved office by the will of the German people. He did not achieve power through a coup.

The Nazi party did not come in to power through a revolution. It was voted in.  It remained in power because people either believed in the fear and hatred that was being espoused by the party, or because they were afraid, or because they were  apathetic about voting.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2016, 12:59:56 PM by Katiebee »

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56

Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #535 on: June 16, 2016, 01:13:00 AM
From President Obama's speech:


We now have proposals from the presumptive nominee—the Republican nominee—to bar all Muslims from immigrating into America. We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests that entire religious communities are complicit in violence. Where does this stop?  The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer—they were all U.S. citizens.

Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently?  Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance?  Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith?

...

We currently do not have any information to indicate that a foreign terrorist group directed the attack in Orlando. It is increasingly clear, however, the killer took in extremist information and propaganda over the internet. It appears to have been an angry and disturbed young man who has been radicalized.

....

Let me make a final point, for a while now the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase "Radical Islam." That's the key they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them "Radical Islam." What exactly will using this label accomplish and what will it change? Will it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring more allies for military strategy than it is served by this?

The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction. ...

There is not a moment where we have not able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use the label "Radical Islam."

Not once has an adviser said “man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around,” not once. ... So there is no magic to the phrase of “radical Islam.” It is a political talking point. It is not a strategy.

And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with “political correctness” and everything to do with actually defeating extremism. Groups like ISIL and al-Qaida want to make this war a war between Islam and America or between Islam and the West.

....

This is a country founded on basic freedom including freedom of religion. We don't have religious tests here. Our founders, our constitution, our bill of rights, are clear about that. And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect—the pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties—the very things that make this country great; the very things that make us exceptional.  And then the terrorists would have won.

And we cannot let that happen.

I will not let that happen.



Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #536 on: June 16, 2016, 09:37:33 PM
EDITORIAL: Ban us, you big baby

The York Dispatch 7:48 a.m. EDT June 16, 2016

Dear Donald Trump,

We have been aware for some time of your tendency to ban from campaign events representatives of certain news organizations with which you disagree.

With the recent addition of The Washington Post to your growing blacklist, however, we can longer remain silent.

It is simply unacceptable for a candidate seeking the highest office in the land — the most important leadership job in the world, if you will — to be playing favorites with the media.

We believe strongly that all responsible news organizations should have equal inaccess to your campaign.

You, sir, are doing us a great disservice by not including The York Dispatch among those organizations unwelcome at your events.

No, the Dispatch does not have the reach of The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post.

Nor do we have the readership even of regional publications like the Des Moines Register and the New Hampshire Union Leader.

The Dispatch might be small by comparison, but our commitment to asking tough questions, pointing out inconsistencies, flagging outright lies, simply holding candidates accountable for their words and actions is second to none.

We happen to agree with Thomas Burr, the National Press Club president who had this to say after your 45-minute tirade against journalists (who had the gall to question your charitable giving to veterans organizations — giving that didn’t begin in earnest until questions were asked):

"Donald Trump misunderstands — or, more likely, simply opposes — the role a free press plays in a democratic society. Reporters are supposed to hold public figures accountable. Any American political candidate who attacks the press for doing its job is campaigning in the wrong country. In the United States, under our Constitution, a free press is a check on politicians of all parties."

That’s exactly how we feel — why won’t you ban us?

We also believe you’re acting like a spoiled-rotten child — the petty poster boy for why we need a strong Fourth Estate. (It’s how the grown-ups sometimes refer to journalists, dating back to … oh, never mind.)

A spoiled, foul-mouthed child, we might add. You’re so quick to insult other members of the media for doing their jobs — “sleaze,” “loser,” “scum” — yet never once have you singled out The York Dispatch.

Let ‘er rip, Mr. Trump. We can take it.

We’ve probably heard worse from others who resent a free press, people who know bigger words and use more syllables.

Now, we understand sitting out your campaign events means we might miss a serious, coherent policy speech. Let’s just say, we like our odds.

The fact is, we caught your act in Harrisburg a month or so back. It was a lot like a Don Rickles bit, if the insult comedian were a little less self-aware.

No, we’re pretty sure we can cover that circus just fine from outside the tent, with the rest of the journalists who refuse to be silenced.

All that said, should you decide to lift your ban and give all members of the media equal access, we would be happy to rescind our request and consider covering a future Trump event in our area.

Unless, of course, it conflicts with the latest Starbucks grand opening, in which case, we’re sure you’ll understand, we would have to weigh the best use of our resources.

Sincerely, and with all the respect you’re due,

The York Dispatch editorial board

(Editor’s note: This opinion piece has been changed to clarify Donald Trump has the demeanor of an over-indulged 2-year-old.)

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/opinion/2016/06/15/editorial-ban-us-you-big-baby/85923818/



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #537 on: June 16, 2016, 10:54:59 PM
Hmmm, what did I post about his authoritarian tendencies? Something about restricting free speech? prophacy is easy with someone as transparent as Trump.  

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


IdleBoast

  • Guest
Reply #538 on: June 17, 2016, 12:09:43 AM

Trump’s response to Orlando massacre proves just how dangerous he is

https://theconversation.com/trumps-response-to-orlando-massacre-proves-just-how-dangerous-he-is-61035




Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
Reply #539 on: June 17, 2016, 01:11:01 AM
It does indeed.