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.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 29 by Elijah John]


Of course you're not a fundamentalist (I wouldn't debate a fundamentalist). You are one of the most civil of debaters on this forum. And I appreciate your form and style -- just not your way of discerning right and wrong in REALITY v. the ecclesiastical harp and circumstance.

2Dbunk wrote:

[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]

Quote:
How exactly do you consider my answers to your challenge "dodges"? Actually, I didn't dodge your challenge, because I answered you. IF Joe Biden were the nominee against Trump, I would vote for Biden provided he returned to his Catholic values, pro-life etc. But unless Mr.Biden returns to traditional Catholic values, I intend to vote for Donald Trump once again.

2Dbunk wrote:
I expected more than just ecclesiastical boilerplate. Your answers were predictable and added nothing to the conversation. But then rationalizing in the defense of mindless traditon is expected from the religiously afflicted.

EJ wrote:
Rather dismissive of you, wouldn't you say 2dB? To say the least...

There are two sides to any argument. I believe I'm arguing from a point of view that is factual, admissible in a court of law. You, EJ, are promulgating an argument based on scripture, rarely admissible in a court of law.

However, your opinion about abortion is NOT supported by scripture or Ghandi, or Budah, so why make your stance a panacea for not voting for some Democrat with dignity? I don't think you have much respect for women!

Quote:
No, you didn't dodge my challenge but I feel you didn't address my concerns about the character of the two candidates -- there is something missing in your defense of Trump!

EJ wrote:
I don't recall ever defending his character. I have always made it clear I support Donald Trump because of his policies, perhaps you missed it.

And his successful policies are moneyed interests based on de-regulation of previous policies set in place to protect from another 2008 crash -- the jury is still out on how successful his efforts will be. Other policies have made us the laughing stock of the world with his naivete and arrogance for even those expert advisors in his administration.

2Dbunk wrote:
IMO women should have absolute control of whatever goes on with their bodies.

EJ wrote
As I mentioned to Danmark, when has a woman ever given birth to herself? The baby in the womb is a unique individual, even speaking biologically. The baby in the womb is not an appendage of the "woman's body" though many advocates of abortion attempt to dehumanize them by referring to them as such. Makes them more disposable, doesn't it?

What is humanizing is if that embryo is WANTED and can be taken care of with LOVE and AFFECTION! Yes, Mother Nature has put the onus of sex on us to accept our responsibilities with the outcome of a coital union. But is it fair for a women to bare the burden of delivery of a child she may not be able to feed? Put yourself in her shoes and try to imagine how that unwanted, expected birth will impact YOUR future.

Sure, she could have said no! but the natural drive to procreate is very, very strong as you should know even as a male. This wouldn't even be an issue if religion wasn't in the mix. WHY DO THEISTS ALWAYS LIMIT THEMSEVES AND TRY TO DO THE SAME OF OTHERS??

Quote by 2Dbunk:
It is nobody else's business let alone clergy and fundamentalist theists -- certainly not bloated politicians playing on the fears of an electorate hidebound about getting to some place they call heaven..

EJ wrote:
It is not only the business, but the duty of all who care about protecting innocent and helpless human life to defend life by opposing abortion on demand.

Why meddle in others business? Has the embryo demanded to be born? Has it asserted its rights to be born (just like a cow or a chicken about to be slaughtered asserts its rights not to be murdered)? NO! because it cannot speak out as a non-human-entity. Its rights are in the hands of its host -- rather fragile at best. God has been the biggest abortion provider ever (if your beliefs are skewed in that direction).

Quote by 2Dbunk:
You deplore my bringing up the past sins of the last Bush Administration, but it's okay for Trump and the Republicans to rail and rant about Obama and the Clintons. Don't expect to have it both ways while defending your man and party!

EJ says:
?? Where do you get this?

Oh, you don't remember calling the Democratic Party morally corrupt? Elephants have such short memories! But then of course you're not a Republican, just a right leaning Independent.

EJ says:
OK, just for starters,

The moral corruption of the Democrat party:

-They jettison the presumption of innocence as demonstrated in the Kavanaugh hearings.

These are hearings, an opportunity to be a senatorial oversight to a presidential appointment, not a case in court.

-They engage in name calling, and some encourage harassment of people they disagree with. (Maxine Watters for example, advocates this)
-They attempt to silence those they disagree with by labeling their speech, "hate speech" and as such, anything justifies the disruption of conservatives when they attempt to give speeches. Just ask Ben Shapiro and Jordon Peterson.

Sounds like a presidential campaign anymore -- are these people running for office?

But I defer to what I said in the first instance: This is not court a court of law. The other side would do the same if the tables were turned.

-They bear false witness by calling good people "racist"

Right you are there, Donald Trump is no racist when it comes to elevating white supremacists!

-The disparage people based on their skin color, especially white men.

Whoa! White men, how dare they! What about white women?[/quote]

-They accuse even poor white people of enjoying "white privilege.

(see above)

-They demand the right to abortion on demand, killing babies in the womb as a method of birth control.

What else would you call it?

-Since abortion disproportionally kills more black babies than white, isn't abortion a racist policy?

Now that's a diabolical twist. I'll have to think about that.

-They deny biological reality by insisting there are more than two genders, and embrace the whole LBGTQUA+ agenda. And if you insist on biological reality, the more extreme Democrats will call you "transphobic" and will attempt to silence if not destroy you. (again, watch the video of Jordon Peterson trying to speak at Mcmaster U.)

Again with the limitations! Why can't you live and let live? Ben Franklin once said if "it doesn't break my leg or steal my wallet, what care should I have."


Hey, these people are real, and they are asserting their rights under our Constitution, so let it be -- they don't bother me in the slightest.

[quota]-THe media allies of the Democrat party attempt to destroy the reputation of innocent children, such as Nicholas Sandman, while ignoring the harassing and hateful taunting directed at Sandman and his fellow students by the Black Hebew Israelites. [/quota]

Sorry, I never heard of it -- sounds like a big deal.

Quote:
and five Black Hebrew Israelites, who taunted the students by shouting racist and homophobic slurs


From Wikipedia. Did CNN mention that fact?

-CNN's focus on mostly the negative when it comes to Donald Trump, and ignoring the positive. Like when Rabbi Goldstien who survived the California Synagogue shooting and expressed great gratitude to President Trump for his support and condolences. Fox covered it live, did CNN?

-Dems shielding the anti-Semite Ilhan Omar specifically, by condemning "hatred" in general. The "reprimand" was diluted by Nancy Pelosi and co.
-They encourage unfettered immigration, and are willing to risk the lives and well being of American citizens in the process. Some demonize ICE and border patrol agents for doing their jobs. Some Democrats, (such as AOC and Kirsten Gillibrand) want to abolish ICE altogether.
-They twist Donald Trumps statements about Charlottsville, bearing false witness.
-They advocate a generous social safety net, but encourage loose border controls. An untenable, and unsustainable combination.
-They tempt migrants to make dangerous journey's to the border by the incentives of loose asylum laws, chain migration policies, giving them driver's licences (which can be used as voter ID) and in-state tuition, etc, etc.
-They label people who want sensible control of our borders "racist" and "xenophobic", "white nationalist" etc. Or disliking "brown people" or opposing the "browning of America". (Yes, I do watch CNN too)
-They fail to protect health and safety of American citizens by tacitly encouraging illegal immigration which bypasses health screening and quarantines.
-President Obama imported Ebola patients from Africa for treatment in the US, risking the lives, health and safety of American citizens. A dereliction of duty to protect the American citizen, which should be the first duty of any American president. Donald Trump would NEVER put American lives at risk this way.

Shall we continue.....?

Nw I think we are getting into "rant and rambling" territory.
_________________
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

[bjs]

Here is an interesting take on the modern obsession with Hitler and the tendency to compare everyone to Hitler.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]
Moral corruption my ______ cavity!

Also: But then rationalizing in the defense of mindless traditon is expected from the religiously afflicted.

Moderator Warning


No thanks. No swearing, no insults please.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 32 by Wootah]

I thought about that and went back to edit it, but too late. I wanted to change it to ". . . MORAL CORRUPTION MY RHOMBUS!

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]

How exactly do you consider my answers to your challenge "dodges"? Actually, I didn't dodge your challenge, because I answered you. IF Joe Biden were the nominee against Trump, I would vote for Biden provided he returned to his Catholic values, pro-life etc. But unless Mr.Biden returns to traditional Catholic values, I intend to vote for Donald Trump once again.

I expected more than just ecclesiastical boilerplate. Your answers were predictable and added nothing to the conversation. But then rationalizing in the defense of mindless traditon is expected from the religiously afflicted.

Rather dismissive of you, wouldn't you say 2dB? To say the least...

No, you didn't dodge my challenge but I feel you didn't address my concerns about the character of the two candidates -- there is something missing in your defense of Trump!

I don't recall ever defending his character. I have always made it clear I support Donald Trump because of his policies, perhaps you missed it.

IMO women should have absolute control of whatever goes on with their bodies.

As I mentioned to Danmark, when has a woman ever given birth to herself? The baby in the womb is a unique individual, even speaking biologically. ...

I'm entirely disappointed in this, for several reasons. First is the inaccurate and, to quote your own word, "dismissive" as well as simplistic and cliche'd description of the Dems. Second because 2Dbunk is spot on when he refers to your argument as "ecclesiastical boilerplate."

The toenail of my the smallest 'appendage' connected to my left foot is also 'unique' and 'human,' but it is not worthy of such draconian protection you assign to a single zygote. One can argue 'till the cows return to their dung spotted homes about the nature of the human zygote, but there is nothing biologically absolute, or even Biblically decreed about some supposed sanctity of this single cell. Even to call it a blob of protoplasm overstates the case.

But for this, frankly silly claim of 'biologic truth' [cough] you are willing to swallow the rest of the immoral and criminal behavior of this, our most vile Presidents? One could just as easily defend Hitler because Der Führer also opposed abortion. Good German 'Christians' did just that. The Holocaust is a reminder we should never get swept up in single issue politics, particularly when, as is the case with tRump, whatever religious beliefs he claims to have are obviously not sincere.

[opinionator]

[Replying to post 1 by 2Dbunk]

What may very well come from this whole Trump movement could be more like a Putin style authoritarianism, rather than Nazi like. But the truth is that there are leftists aching for that chance as well. We are seeing the culmination of the culture war. Its just a matter of whose heel we end up under now.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by 2Dbunk]

What may very well come from this whole Trump movement could be more like a Putin style authoritarianism, rather than Nazi like. But the truth is that there are leftists aching for that chance as well. We are seeing the culmination of the culture war. Its just a matter of whose heel we end up under now.

Please define 'leftist' and name the 'leftist' authoritarian who is anti democratic and has realistic plans to take over the United States. Who is the 'leftist' authoritarian 'aching' for 'that chance?'

You appear to be conflating two issues, 1) 'left v. right' and 2) democratic v. anti democratic (authoritarian). It is worth noting that in the 2016 election, the 'left' Democratic party received more votes than Trump, 3 million more.

The 'left' in the U.S. is democratic, rather than authoritarian. They are opposed to gerrymandering and voter suppression while the evangelical right supports both of those anti democracy techniques.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 34 by Danmark]

It is much easier to dispose of someone once they are dehumanized and considered only a "part of the woman's body".

And to make such an assertion is a rationalization, and is scientifically inaccurate as well.
Your toe is a genetic match for you alone. The human embryo is not a genetic match for the mother. The unborn baby has their own unique genetic makeup.

The human embryo is an unborn baby, NOT a disposable appendage.

The tactic of dehumanizing before disposal is Hitlarian. And that is what the so-called pro-choice movement does.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 34 by Danmark]

It is much easier to dispose of someone once they are dehumanized and considered only a "part of the woman's body".

And to make such an assertion is a rationalization, and is scientifically inaccurate as well.
Your toe is a genetic match for you alone. The human embryo is not a genetic match for the mother. The unborn baby has their own unique genetic makeup.

The human embryo is an unborn baby, NOT a disposable appendage.

The tactic of dehumanizing before disposal is Hitlarian. And that is what the so-called pro-choice movement does.

I agree there is a distinction between my toenail and a single cell, a zygote. That fertilized egg, a single cell cannot live on its own. In other words, it is not viable.

Consider the implications of the position of the anti abortionist:
"A woman, immediately after conception, should have her body totally controlled by the State. Her body is no longer her own, but should be restricted by the State. Either the State will imprison her until she gives birth, thus not allowing her to dispose of the unwanted growth within her (never mind whether it is the product of rape or incest) or she is subject to the charge of homicide if she does not carry the baby to term.

Those who are opposed to abortion are infamous for not carrying about human life once it emerges from its life support system. The same people who are 'anti abortion' vote overwhelmingly against universal health care and aid to children. Their hypocrisy is noted. Thus their self proclaimed 'pro-life' moniker is inaccurate.

I have never heard an anti abortionist claim that from the moment of conception, THEY (or the State) is willing to provide the life support necessary to bring the unviable zygote-embryo-fetus to a point of viability where it can live independently outside the uterus.

If one decrees that a single individual human cell (zygote) is fully human and deserves the same protections all humans deserve, then the mother's health would not be a factor and even draconian laws like that of Alabama would be unconstitutional in carving out an exception for the health of the mother.

Ultimately a simple way of disposing of the absurdities of these 'Christian' and 'Muslim' absolutist, dogmatic positions is based on jurisdiction:
The State should not, and does not, have jurisdiction over what goes on inside an adult's body. There is ample medical and legal precedent for this position.

[Wootah]

Here is an interesting take on the modern obsession with Hitler and the tendency to compare everyone to Hitler.

Moderator Comment

There are times when a valid link can help expand upon a topic and I think that is the case here but it is best to use our posts to debate. I certainly don't want to encourage people doing 'drive-by' links to interesting viewpoints.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.