Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:
Man, did this thread get godwinned hard...

Well, you have a right wing nationalist supported by hate groups who quotes Mussolini and pins his countries problems on ethnic and religious minorities, there will be comparisons to Hitler. It's like if you crawl on walls, spin webs, and swing through the city in blue and red fighting crime, someone will compare you to Spiderman.

 Ustrello wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Man, did this thread get godwinned hard...

When someone's rise is comparable and uses similar rhetoric it is kinda hard to not bring it up. But keep deflecting away jonsie

It's not deflection when it's true (putting aside the fact that Godwin's so-called "law" was nothing more than a humorous observation on Godwin's part).


Equating Trump to Hitler (which is what this teacher was doing, regardless of said teacher using the cover of academic exercises to do so), because the rhetorical methods used to racking up the votes was similar to Hitler and the NSDAP is utter hyperbole and nonsense. The truth is that political campaigning will have similarities, regardless of who does it, where it's at, and when it was done. Some aspects of campaigning (and politics in general) is a universal constant.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Man, did this thread get godwinned hard...

When someone's rise is comparable and uses similar rhetoric it is kinda hard to not bring it up. But keep deflecting away jonsie

It's not deflection when it's true (putting aside the fact that Godwin's so-called "law" was nothing more than a humorous observation on Godwin's part).


Equating Trump to Hitler (which is what this teacher was doing, regardless of said teacher using the cover of academic exercises to do so), because the rhetorical methods used to racking up the votes was similar to Hitler and the NSDAP is utter hyperbole and nonsense. The truth is that political campaigning will have similarities, regardless of who does it, where it's at, and when it was done. Some aspects of campaigning (and politics in general) is a universal constant.

There is nothing wrong with drawing comparisons to Hitler, as long as those comparisons are accurate and you don't claim that the new person is literally Hitler.

We can say that someone has the same mustache as Hitler, and as long as they are Michael Jordan that will be a truthful statement. That doesn't mean that Michael Jordan is Hitler.

In the same token we can point out that Trump's rhetoric and campaign style has many similarities with those of Hitler and the NSDAP. That doesn't mean that Trump is Hitler or that the GOP is turning into the NSDAP.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Man, did this thread get godwinned hard...

Well, you have a right wing nationalist supported by hate groups who quotes Mussolini and pins his countries problems on ethnic and religious minorities, there will be comparisons to Hitler. It's like if you crawl on walls, spin webs, and swing through the city in blue and red fighting crime, someone will compare you to Spiderman.

Trump is more a centrist than anything else. I think that people will find that out over the course of his term in office.


And "nationalist" in the United States isn't the same thing as what Europeans have in mind when they use the term. Here, "nationalist" is defined in the traditional manner (i.e. Somebody who believes in the primacy of the nation-state). Not the use as a buzzword as seen in Europe (anybody who is right wing with (allegedly) fascist leanings).


Most of Trump's rhetoric had been aimed at illegal immigration and preventing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism on U.S. soil. Not at ethnic groups and nationalities in general. If fact, Trump has a base of support among American hispanics and Muslims.


Just because racist groups publicly threw in their support behind Trump means nothing. They've been doing it as long as there has been such groups in the United States. In fact, Bill Clinton had the support of the Klans in Arkansas during his run for the Oval Office. Al Gore had the support of some of the Tennessee Klaverns when he ran. The same for Dubya. And in the election we just had, the were Klans that came out in support of Hillary. Trump isn't unique in that regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Man, did this thread get godwinned hard...

When someone's rise is comparable and uses similar rhetoric it is kinda hard to not bring it up. But keep deflecting away jonsie

It's not deflection when it's true (putting aside the fact that Godwin's so-called "law" was nothing more than a humorous observation on Godwin's part).


Equating Trump to Hitler (which is what this teacher was doing, regardless of said teacher using the cover of academic exercises to do so), because the rhetorical methods used to racking up the votes was similar to Hitler and the NSDAP is utter hyperbole and nonsense. The truth is that political campaigning will have similarities, regardless of who does it, where it's at, and when it was done. Some aspects of campaigning (and politics in general) is a universal constant.

There is nothing wrong with drawing comparisons to Hitler, as long as those comparisons are accurate and you don't claim that the new person is literally Hitler.

We can say that someone has the same mustache as Hitler, and as long as they are Michael Jordan that will be a truthful statement. That doesn't mean that Michael Jordan is Hitler.

In the same token we can point out that Trump's rhetoric and campaign style has many similarities with those of Hitler and the NSDAP. That doesn't mean that Trump is Hitler or that the GOP is turning into the NSDAP.

Considering the uproar going on now, and the traditional support of the political establishment by academia (predominately left, but a considerable number leaning right), I consider it highly suspect on the part of the teacher in question.


It may be a knee-jerk reaction on my part, and I could be wrong. But the educational establishment hasn't given me much reason to trust it over the last 30 years. Especially when it's entangled with politics on all levels of government.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Just because racist groups publicly threw in their support behind Trump means nothing. They've been doing it as long as there has been such groups in the United States. In fact, Bill Clinton had the support of the Klans in Arkansas during his run for the Oval Office. Al Gore had the support of some of the Tennessee Klaverns when he ran. The same for Dubya. And in the election we just had, the were Klans that came out in support of Hillary. Trump isn't unique in that regard.

It means something when it is pandered to instead of being pushed back against.

It means even more when you made Breitbart news the CEO of your campaign and possibly your Chief of Staff in the White House.

 d-usa wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Just because racist groups publicly threw in their support behind Trump means nothing. They've been doing it as long as there has been such groups in the United States. In fact, Bill Clinton had the support of the Klans in Arkansas during his run for the Oval Office. Al Gore had the support of some of the Tennessee Klaverns when he ran. The same for Dubya. And in the election we just had, the were Klans that came out in support of Hillary. Trump isn't unique in that regard.

It means something when it is pandered to instead of being pushed back against.

It means even more when you made Breitbart news the CEO of your campaign and possibly your Chief of Staff in the White House.

I didn't see Bill Clinton or Al Gore publicly denounce the Klan groups that supported them either. No surprise, considering that in politics, votes are votes. Whatever helps you win the race for office.


The same with Dubya. And I don't recall Hillary denouncing these groups' support either.


Coming out against racism and discrimination in general isn't the same as denouncing the groups supporting you. But it's also not an indicator of pandering or being racist yourself.


Breitbart and their CEO doesn't even factor into it. Breitbart is a crappy politically incorrect internet tabloid that gave us the bombastic Milo. Not Stormfront, Chimpout.com, Virginia Dare, or some other website run and frequented by blatant racists.

 Breotan wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On another note, the Democrats must have been fully aware of the problems that ACA was causing, and yet, they didn't fix it.

Was it because it was a poorly drafted bill? GOP opposition? Obama not being bothered? All three?

They designed it for the rate hikes to hit later on. There is a theory that they did this so ACA would be so unpopular that the people would want single payer health care. The problem with the theory is that Hillary would have run on it were it part of the design. I'm certain that the Democrats didn't see the Republicans taking all three branches so early on.

The other half of it is that Congress is notorious for kicking the can down the road. Congress nearly always chooses the most politically expedient quick fix, something that will work in the short term, particularly if it's close to election time in order to get votes (look, we fixed X problem!). They're quite happy to worry about the long term effects later, and even then they'll usually just do the same thing again by slapping a quick fix bandaid on whatever the most pressing problem is. Most of them are on the political gravy train for life, so they don't have to suffer any of the financial consequences of their decisions like the rest of the country has to.

Actually planning ahead for the future, and doing what is best in the long run (even if it means something bad in the short term), is not something Congress likes to do. Nobody votes because of how good the country will be ten years from now.

 Ustrello wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Man, did this thread get godwinned hard...

When someone's rise is comparable and uses similar rhetoric it is kinda hard to not bring it up. But keep deflecting away jonsie

I believe the valid comparisons that can be made between Trump and Hitler would have more impact if a large part of the people making them today had not for years or even decades been attempting to put the Hitler-brand onto basically anyone that disagree with them on anything remotely connected to race, immigration etc. (some hyperbole admitted from my part)

The boy left/media/whatever has cried wolf Hitler a few (thousand) times to many for most people to take it serious.

 Zywus wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Man, did this thread get godwinned hard...

When someone's rise is comparable and uses similar rhetoric it is kinda hard to not bring it up. But keep deflecting away jonsie

I believe the valid comparisons that can be made between Trump and Hitler would have more impact if a large part of the people making them today had not for years or even decades been attempting to put the Hitler-brand onto basically anyone that disagree with them on anything remotely connected to race, immigration etc. (some hyperbole admitted from my part)

The boy left/media/whatever has cried wolf Hitler a few (thousand) times to many for most people to take it serious.

Indeed, such arguments are so overdone that voters have simply become hardened to them. In fact, they're often counter productive and drive voters into the very arms of the people they're deriding. Trump and Brexit are what you get when you ignore issues like mass immigration for too long and label anyone and everyone that dares talk about those issues as racist.

Speaking for myself, my reaction when people try to use moral arguments to sway me (you can't vote for Brexit, thats racist; you can't vote for stronger border controls, thats racist; you can't oppose mass immigration, thats racist; etc) is simply...contempt.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Speaking for myself, my reaction when people try to use moral arguments to sway me (you can't vote for Brexit, thats racist; you can't vote for stronger border controls, thats racist; you can't oppose mass immigration, thats racist; etc) is simply...contempt.

100% agreed. Attempting to distill a political opponent's views down to whatever -ism of the week (racism, sexism, etc.) is a great way to make that person feel marginalized and alienated, signal to them that you have zero interest in understanding their point of view, and ensure that their stance on the policies will NOT change.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Speaking for myself, my reaction when people try to use moral arguments to sway me (you can't vote for Brexit, thats racist; you can't vote for stronger border controls, thats racist; you can't oppose mass immigration, thats racist; etc) is simply...contempt.

100% agreed. Attempting to distill a political opponent's views down to whatever -ism of the week (racism, sexism, etc.) is a great way to make that person feel marginalized and alienated, signal to them that you have zero interest in understanding their point of view, and ensure that their stance on the policies will NOT change.

At the same time, disilling all criticism down to "-isms" also doesn't do any good.

People didn't think Trump's immigration policies were racist because they dealt with immigration. They thought they were racist because he called Mexicans thiefs, drug addicts, and rapists. Also because he also said that a Mexican judge couldn't be impartial. Also because he thinks all refugees are Islamic extremists. Also because he pushes a view of immigration that isn't based on reality. Also because he complained about taco trucks on every corner.

So dismissing any criticism that someone is racist because "they used an -ism word" without actually looking at why the claim of racism is made is just as dumb as calling all immigration policies racist.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Speaking for myself, my reaction when people try to use moral arguments to sway me (you can't vote for Brexit, thats racist; you can't vote for stronger border controls, thats racist; you can't oppose mass immigration, thats racist; etc) is simply...contempt.

I have a similar reaction to Brexiteers

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Speaking for myself, my reaction when people try to use moral arguments to sway me (you can't vote for Brexit, thats racist; you can't vote for stronger border controls, thats racist; you can't oppose mass immigration, thats racist; etc) is simply...contempt.

I have a similar reaction to Brexiteers

Glad we're on the same page, then...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Speaking for myself, my reaction when people try to use moral arguments to sway me (you can't vote for Brexit, thats racist; you can't vote for stronger border controls, thats racist; you can't oppose mass immigration, thats racist; etc) is simply...contempt.

100% agreed. Attempting to distill a political opponent's views down to whatever -ism of the week (racism, sexism, etc.) is a great way to make that person feel marginalized and alienated, signal to them that you have zero interest in understanding their point of view, and ensure that their stance on the policies will NOT change.

At the same time, disilling all criticism down to "-isms" also doesn't do any good.

People didn't think Trump's immigration policies were racist because they dealt with immigration. They thought they were racist because he called Mexicans thiefs, drug addicts, and rapists. Also because he also said that a Mexican judge couldn't be impartial. Also because he thinks all refugees are Islamic extremists. Also because he pushes a view of immigration that isn't based on reality. Also because he complained about taco trucks on every corner.

So dismissing any criticism that someone is racist because "they used an -ism word" without actually looking at why the claim of racism is made is just as dumb as calling all immigration policies racist.

Right. Like I said, Trump is what you get when you ignore issues and allow them to fester too long and denounce anyone that tries to discuss them. Plenty of Republicans/British conservatives/European Conservatives were denounced as racist for wanting to tackle excessive levels of immigration long before Trump announced his candidacy. This goes back decades.

Hell, its long been a political Orthodoxy that Mass Immigration = Good. Opposing Mass Immigration = Racism.

Congrats on replying while managing to ignore the entire point of that post.

 d-usa wrote:
Congrats on replying while managing to ignore the entire point of that post.

Ditto.

Then there are gems like this in my PM:

trexmeyer wrote:Is not a race. It is nationality. Hispanic is not a race. It is an ethnic group. Muslims are not a race. They are part of a religion.

The word you are looking to use is not racist. It is prejudiced.

When defining how people dislike another group come see down to arguing about the technicalities of the various definitions, then the actual problem is being ignored to begin with.

 djones520 wrote:
Man, did this thread get godwinned hard...

Well, Trump does keep saying that only he can fix our problems. One might say he's out Final Solution to our problems.




(That joke is bad, and I apologize)

oldravenman3025 wrote:
Trump is more a centrist than anything else. I think that people will find that out over the course of his term in office.

I hope so, because thus far all signs point to Hard Right and Nationalism.

oldravenman3025 wrote:
And "nationalist" in the United States isn't the same thing as what Europeans have in mind when they use the term. Here, "nationalist" is defined in the traditional manner (i.e. Somebody who believes in the primacy of the nation-state). Not the use as a buzzword as seen in Europe (anybody who is right wing with (allegedly) fascist leanings).

Sorry, I don't speak Southern, and up here in the north, we use it the way the Europeans use it. And it's been a 'buzzword' since about 1928 to describe a particular sort of political leaning.

oldravenman3025 wrote:
Most of Trump's rhetoric had been aimed at illegal immigration and preventing Islamic fundamentalist terrorism on U.S. soil. Not at ethnic groups and nationalities in general. If fact, Trump has a base of support among American hispanics and Muslims.

So you deny that he called for a blanket ban on Muslims entering the US, a nation wide Muslim database and requiring Muslims to carry documentation identifying them as such?
I mean, let's be honest, he stopped just short of requiring them to sew yellow crescents on their clothing and the word 'Muslim'.

And I'll leave some of the other ones at 'Bad Hombres'.

oldravenman3025 wrote:
I didn't see Bill Clinton or Al Gore publicly denounce the Klan groups that supported them either. No surprise, considering that in politics, votes are votes. Whatever helps you win the race for office

One, been trying to find it, but yes, Bill Clinton did denounce the KKK during the election against George H. W. Bush. Gore I couldn't find anything, not sure he bothered to take the time.

Two, the Hillery one was questionable at best (one guy no one ever heard of claimed to be a grand whatever and issued a statement that was unprooven). And, I believe, in one of the two Carolina's, which one escapes me, the KKK will be holding state wide rally's and parades to commemorate Trumps victory in the near future, over the protests of the Republican Party. Oh, and David Duke was doing robocalls for Trump, so I'll go out on a limb and say that the KKK, in general, was for Trump.


[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

Nice Straw Man.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Hell, its long been a political Orthodoxy that Mass Immigration = Good. Opposing Mass Immigration = Racism.

That probably because opposition to mass immigration has consistently fallen back on nativism (which isn't racist per se), and lots of racist stereotypes (which nativism tends to be prone to making).

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Speaking for myself, my reaction when people try to use moral arguments to sway me (you can't vote for Brexit, thats racist; you can't vote for stronger border controls, thats racist; you can't oppose mass immigration, thats racist; etc) is simply...contempt.

100% agreed. Attempting to distill a political opponent's views down to whatever -ism of the week (racism, sexism, etc.) is a great way to make that person feel marginalized and alienated, signal to them that you have zero interest in understanding their point of view, and ensure that their stance on the policies will NOT change.

The problem with that argument about distilling an opponent's views, however, is that this election largely proved that people don't want to listen to long arguments. If you can't express it in a tweet or catchy slogan, it gets ignored.

This thread is really giving the MOD ALERT BUTTON quite the work out.

ONCE AGAIN - RULE #1, EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME.

Debate the point, do not personally attack the poster.

From here on in, breaking site rules here will get the offending party a nice long break from posting in the OT Forum.

This was not an election of good vs evil, it was an election of evil vs evil with both sides being blind to or willing to accept/tolerate the evil from their side. My own candidate had a lot of weaknesses, but it wasnt Trump supporters going after us like rabid dogs, it was Hillary's.

This is a surprise...

Donald Trump names Reince Priebus as chief of staff, putting an establishment figure in a key White House post

Trump selected the Republican National Committee chairman, according to two people familiar with the decision. Priebus was the favorite of GOP Congressional leaders and recommended by House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Stephen K. Bannon, the chief executive of Trump’s campaign and head of Breitbart News, and Corey Lewandowski, who was Trump’s first campaign manager, were also believed to be in the running for the position.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

Bannon would've been an awful pick.

Priebus makes sense in that he'll provide a "face" to the WH when working with the rest of the government... and provide a buffer to Trump.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Speaking for myself, my reaction when people try to use moral arguments to sway me (you can't vote for Brexit, thats racist; you can't vote for stronger border controls, thats racist; you can't oppose mass immigration, thats racist; etc) is simply...contempt.

100% agreed. Attempting to distill a political opponent's views down to whatever -ism of the week (racism, sexism, etc.) is a great way to make that person feel marginalized and alienated, signal to them that you have zero interest in understanding their point of view, and ensure that their stance on the policies will NOT change.

The problem with that argument about distilling an opponent's views, however, is that this election largely proved that people don't want to listen to long arguments. If you can't express it in a tweet or catchy slogan, it gets ignored.

That's always been the case.

Allegedly Rinse Pubis gets along very well with Speaker Ryan, and since Trump really needs the House to go along with his agenda it may be a smart pick.

For a little levity... check it:
http://heatst.com/life/meme-joe-biden-wants-to-prank-our-new-president-obama-not-so-sure/

I'll wade into this argument and try bring some perspective, I hope.

Never in a million years would I have voted for Trump but I can understand why people voted for him, and they voted for him for the same reasons for BREXIT: they really are fed up with 'political elites' and being told what to do.

Political elites is not a bad cliche here, these people exist, and they have nothing but disdain and contempt for ordinary people.

Americans might not be aware of this, but working class white people in Britain are treated like gak by so called 'progressives.'

They don't like the working class, they don't trust them.

As somebody from that social strata myself, this is what I've had to listen to for the last 20 years:

A sugar tax is needed becuase people like you can't be trusted to eat good food, and you're all fat and obese.

You automatically beleive everything you read in right-wing newspapers.

You can't be trusted to raise children - you treat them bad and abuse them.

When it's the soccer world cup, don't you dare start waving an English flag in England, becuase that's evil nationalism.

And you hate immigrants, and your favourite hobby is beating up immigrants on a Saturday.

This is no exageration. Liberals have said and done these things. That is the default setting for many a British newspaper.

And I saw the same thing happen in the USA.

Oh, you're a redneck, you own guns, that makes you bad, and you;re going to shoot up a school.

You're voting for Trump becuase your sexist and hate women, and you're probably a grand master in the KKK etc etc

When people outside of NY and LA and New England, have to listen to years of that, they will push back.

I don't blame them for voting Trump. If I had to listen to that everyday, I would have voted for Trump...

The evidence is the reaction from so called progressives since Tuesday night. They talk about the 'dark ages,' nuclear winter, progress set back 50 years and so on.

They voted Trump becuase they were racist and sexit, not because Clinton was backed by arms companies and was planning on more warhawk foreing policy, or took cash from regimes with bad human rights records or any other valid reason....

There is no nuance. Nobody ever said, we need 50,000 immigrants to fill a skills gap. It was all, you're accepting immigrants, and if you object, you're a racist....

But so called liberals and progressive, in many respects, have only themselves to blame...

I don't like Trump, would never have voted for him, but I can understand why people did...

I found something interesting while passing time at work today.

Up until now, only four men elected President have never held office prior to their election: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Herbert Hoover, and Dwight Eisenhower. That being said, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower were all military men while Hoover headed the U.S. Food Administration and then Secretary of Commerce before being elected. William Taft wasn't elected, but he did serve as governor of the Philippines from 1901 to 1903, after which he was appointed Secretary of War (also of note, Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court eight years after he left office).

Donald Trump is the only person with no experience in government or the military to be elected President in the history of the nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This is a surprise...

Donald Trump names Reince Priebus as chief of staff, putting an establishment figure in a key White House post

Wait, are you seriously surprised by this?

You didn't actually believe all of his "drain the swamp" nonsense, did you?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I found something interesting while passing time at work today.

Up until now, only four men elected President have never held office prior to their election: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Herbert Hoover, and Dwight Eisenhower. That being said, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower were all military men while Hoover headed the U.S. Food Administration and then Secretary of Commerce before being elected. William Taft wasn't elected, but he did serve as governor of the Philippines from 1901 to 1903, after which he was appointed Secretary of War (also of note, Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court eight years after he left office).

Donald Trump is the only person with no experience in government or the military to be elected President in the history of the nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This is a surprise...

Donald Trump names Reince Priebus as chief of staff, putting an establishment figure in a key White House post

Wait, are you seriously surprised by this?

You didn't actually believe all of his "drain the swamp" nonsense, did you?

Here's another fun fact: it's the first time since 1928 that the Congress, Senate, and POTUS, have all been controlled by the same party.

1928 being 1 year before 1929, and we all know what happened in 1929