HITLER and TRUMP

[2Dbunk]

"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer reveals the history of Adoph Hitler’s efforts in a very, very negative way. But there are some (small amount?) who disagree. Likewise the Holocaust deniers claim that history was distorted by the victor’s claims of gross genocide. Most rational people that I know agree with the former – that Nazism is highly unethical!

I’m in the process of reading "Bonhoeffer" (published in 2011) and find that Eric Metaxas confirms much, if not all, of Shirer’s history. What's most disturbing is that many passages in the text show Hitler’s chaotic politics, mannerisms, and untruthfulness could be attributed to Donald Trump (just reverse their names).

Bonhoeffer was a theologian in Germany who was basically a fundamentalist (the established churches of the 1920s and 30s he found superficial when it came to celebrating the spirit of Jesus). Bonhoeffer quickly became disillusioned with Hitler’s manipulation of those main stream churches and the dictator's disdain for everything Christian while providing lip service to it so as to maintain his “religious� demeanor with the common folk (or he would not have survived in politics, duh).

I ask if anyone cares to debate the Donald’s intentions in making America great again in a (subtle?) but parallel way of Hitler’s efforts to make Germany great again? For that matter one might even throw in Trump’s parroting of Putin’s making Russia great again (Trump does seem to have an affinity for dictators – he even said he wouldn’t mind the opportunity to try that role).

One other question for debate: Why are evangelical Republicans and some Democrats lapping up his chaotic, untruthful soup? With all the indictments docketed the “swamp� seems to be getting deeper -- and thicker.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 66 by Danmark]

Trump's statement applies to Omar and Somalia. It is a crime infested failed state. How is it racist for President Trump to point that out?

EJ you are changing the facts and appearing hopelessly naive (that is the most generous way I can put it).
1st, Trump didn't just say Somalia is a crime infested (so is the U.S. according to the GOP), failed state. He told Omar, a woman who has been an American Citizen since child hood, to 'go back there.' More importantly he told 3 other American Citizens who are women of color, and were born in the U.S., to "go back" to THEIR countries too. You left that out of your factually inept reconstruction.
Why would he tell an American citizen of color, born in THIS country to "go back" to "her" [sic] country if it were not for his racism?

I don't give anyone a pass for anti Semitic remarks and the DEMS did indeed call out Omar for her statement that it's all about money, which was mistakenly seen as anti Semitic.

Racists and white supremacists, those who identify themselves with those two evils, think Trump is a racist and white supremacist and that he supports their views. They should know.

'"Hail Trump: White nationalists mark Trump win with Nazi salute
In the US, video has emerged of far right activists celebrating Donald Trump’s victory with what appear to be Nazi salutes.'


If your own intuition does not tell you this "There's good people on both sides" guy is a racist and white supremacist, then I don't know how to explain it to you, but you can check out the many articles on the subject:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... b745d4be40



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... gy/593962/

Even Republicans are calling Trump out on this, only his latest and most obvious racist remark. EJ what would it take for you to 'get it' that Trump is a racist? His own confession? Racists who run for office don't generally do that.

[Danmark]

George Conway, Republican, spoke for me today:

"No, I thought, President Trump was boorish, dim-witted, inarticulate, incoherent, narcissistic and insensitive. He’s a pathetic bully but an equal-opportunity bully — in his uniquely crass and crude manner, he’ll attack anyone he thinks is critical of him. No matter how much I found him ultimately unfit, I still gave him the benefit of the doubt about being a racist. No matter how much I came to dislike him, I didn’t want to think that the president of the United States is a racial bigot.

But Sunday left no doubt. Naivete, resentment and outright racism, roiled in a toxic mix, have given us a racist president. Trump could have used vile slurs, including the vilest of them all, and the intent and effect would have been no less clear. Telling four non-white members of Congress — American citizens all, three natural-born — to “go back� to the “countries� they “originally came from�? That’s racist to the core. It doesn’t matter what these representatives are for or against — and there’s plenty to criticize them for — it’s beyond the bounds of human decency. For anyone, not least a president.

What’s just as bad, though, is the virtual silence from Republican leaders and officeholders. They’re silent not because they agree with Trump. Surely they know better. They’re silent because, knowing that he’s incorrigible, they have inured themselves to his wild statements; because, knowing that he’s a fool, they don’t really take his words seriously and pretend that others shouldn’t, either; because, knowing how damaging Trump’s words are, the Republicans don’t want to give succor to their political enemies; because, knowing how vindictive, stubborn and obtusely self-destructive Trump is, they fear his wrath."

The entire article is worth reading and recounts a childhood experience where Conway heard the common racist remark,

'But I will never forget what she said to my mother, who had come to this country from the Philippines decades before. In these words or something close, the woman said, “Go back to your country.�'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 4116a0851b

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 71 by Danmark]

IMO I believe Trump is daring the House of Representatives to impeach him; that is why his recent attacks on legislators of color. He is gambling that such an effort would show that body politic to be MORE divisive to the country than even he is -- thus appealing to mainstreamers (happy with the economy), adding to his base of coarse supporters.

Pelosi is playing it cool, not calling for impeachment -- not taking the bait. I hope she has a plan to confound Mr. Trump. He CAN BE confounded -- he has an Achilles heel! All that needs to be done is for the Democrats to reverse the tables on him this election cycle, using the countless facts of the Mueller Report in tandem with Trump's video moments to continually embarrass him. Maybe he can't be embarrassed, but he sure can be defeated by made-aware citizens in a plebiscite -- even if they hadn't read Mueller's report.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 71 by Danmark]

IMO I believe Trump is daring the House of Representatives to impeach him; that is why his recent attacks on legislators of color. He is gambling that such an effort would show that body politic to be MORE divisive to the country than even he is -- thus appealing to mainstreamers (happy with the economy), adding to his base of coarse supporters.

Pelosi is playing it cool, not calling for impeachment -- not taking the bait. I hope she has a plan to confound Mr. Trump. He CAN BE confounded -- he has an Achilles heel! All that needs to be done is for the Democrats to reverse the tables on him this election cycle, using the countless facts of the Mueller Report in tandem with Trump's video moments to continually embarrass him. Maybe he can't be embarrassed, but he sure can be defeated by made-aware citizens in a plebiscite -- even if they hadn't read Mueller's report.

There is little question, just based on Mueller's report, that Trump should be impeached and convicted. The only hesitancy is based on political concerns.

Returning to the 'Trump is a Racist' issue, an example that his comments are not just racist, but potentially unlawful comes from the EEOC.

"Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, "Go back to where you came from...."
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/ ... -facts.cfm

[Wootah]

I think the key thing is that if a person thinks something is racist it's because for that person it was a dog whistle that that person as a racist heard.

[Danmark]

I think the key thing is that if a person thinks something is racist it's because for that person it was a dog whistle that that person as a racist heard.

Yes, it can be in the ear of the beholder, but when you know or should know that certain phrases are seen generally as racist, and certainly perceived as racist by a minority, then they should be avoided.

"Go back where you came from" is such a classic racist trope, it is cited as such by the U.S. Gov'ment. Not that Trump would be likely to know that.

Can anyone on this forum honestly agree that they would ever tell any person of color to "Go back where you come from?" It's rude and aggressive no matter who it is addressed to.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Danmark]

It's not racist. If anyone thinks it is then they are hearing dog whistles.

Rude and aggressive is not equal to racist.

This forum has a civility policy that life doesn't have BUT if anyone breaks it we send them back to where they came from.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

It's not racist. If anyone thinks it is then they are hearing dog whistles.

If a black or brown person tells you that he or she feels it is racist when you say 'go back to where you came from,' would you feel it might be racist?

Let me put it in context, without any other information about a person except that they appeared Asian, or African, on Middle Eastern, or Mexican and you heard someone tell that person, "Go back to the country you came from," would you think the speaker had a motive that was at least partly based on race?

This is the sad thing to me Wootah. I believe there are many people of good will who would not themselves utter a remark they knew to be racist, who are oblivious to the racial impact of certain phrases.

I'll give you an example. I have a friend who is very dear to me. Her heritage is Japanese, tho' her family's been in this country for 3 generations and she's as American as you or me. Perhaps because she is tall she frequently gets asked, as a first question, "What are you?" I don't think many of the people who ask that are racists, but they ARE insensitive. Perhaps without realizing it, they are focusing on 'race' as opposed to other characteristics.

But, "Go back to your country," particularly when aimed exclusively at people of color only, is inherently racist. Hence the EEOC example.

BTW, 'race' is not a scientific category. There are no 'races,' biologically. We are all of only one race, the human race, homo sapiens. So if a person is angry at someone and that person is "white," and spoke standard English, no one in the U.S. would ever say, "Go back to your country."

BTW, Wootah, it appears you do not know the colloquial definition of "dog whistle." You are correct, the person IS hearing a "dog whistle." Here is the definition:
"Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is "in the know" will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... %20whistle

The classic 'dog whistle' is when a racist refers to 'urban' he is talking about blacks. Obviously not everyone who uses the word 'urban' is using it that way. But frequently it is 'code' for 'blacks.' "Inner city" is another, more obvious dog whistle.

When we live in a country that has purposely exterminated native Americans and created a slave labor force based on 'race,' and has had a history of racist laws, shouldn't we be at least just a bit sensitive to the unintended racist meanings of our words?

For Trump, the analysis is very different. He makes racist remarks on purpose. About 28% of his base LOVES it. Because they are racist. He enables them and secures their vote.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Danmark]

If a green person tells you 2 + 2 = 5. Do you just accept that for them it is 5?

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

If a green person tells you 2 + 2 = 5. Do you just accept that for them it is 5?

This is not an argument. I gave you a long, detailed, reasoned essay; an attempt at education rather than a debating point. instead of responding in kind you give me an absurd rhetorical question, a non sequitur. You can do better than that. Frankly, I do not even understand whatever point it was you were trying to make.

Can you not respond specifically to at least one of the points I made?