General US Politics

[tuvarkz]

I wouldn't compare Trump with Hitler either but I think a good chunk of Trump voters - willingly or not - feel spoken to by him in a similar way a lot of germans felt spoken to by Hitler.

But yeah the mere though that Trump would commit genocide, start a war with Russia and drag pretty much the whole world into a war is absurd. I'd be much more afraid of that happening if Cruz or Clinton became president.

If anything, a Trump presidency would point to a friendlier relation between Russia and the US.

[blah the Prussian]

Hitler clearly wrote out and expressed his ideals in Mein Kampf well before he got elected; if that had happened in the internet age, there's no way in hell he would've gotten elected.

Yeah, Trump says stupid things and flings insults, but seriously comparing him to Hitler is like comparing a riding mower to a Ferrari.

Really? I think you are greatly overestimating the goodness of the average person in the 1930s. Hitler said pretty much the same things he said in Mein Kampf that he did in his Jitler over Germany campaign, the campaign widely credited with getting the Nazis in power.

[Yojinbo]

If anything, a Trump presidency would point to a friendlier relation between Russia and the US.

Which is a huge reason why I'd never argue Clinton to be a better choice than Trump. I dislike them equally.

Really? I think you are greatly overestimating the goodness of the average person in the 1930s. Hitler said pretty much the same things he said in Mein Kampf that he did in his Jitler over Germany campaign, the campaign widely credited with getting the Nazis in power.

I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding DanMan here. I'll let him explain though.

[Radiant head]

But if he can't pass his free college/free medicaid laws, what will he do? Assuming this next election or the midterm gives a cooperating Congress, we already know what Hillary will be pushing for and that she'll probably be able to accomplish most of it. If Bernie's ideas turn out to be just pipe dreams, what will he be trying to pass in their place? Will he go at it in increments (ban student loan interest, free community college, expand medicaid)? Bernie needs to assure the voters that he'll actually be able to do things once he's in office if he wants to beat Hillary.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, nor do I understand where you get this idea that Clinton would somehow have more success bargaining with congress than Bernie would. It's a fairly standard bargaining tactic that you start by setting the bar high.

And frankly getting things passed is just as much on American voters as it would be on Bernie. The abysmally low midterm turnouts are why congress is the way it is now.

[The DanMan]

Really? I think you are greatly overestimating the goodness of the average person in the 1930s. Hitler said pretty much the same things he said in Mein Kampf that he did in his Jitler over Germany campaign, the campaign widely credited with getting the Nazis in power.

Hitler's reign was a product of an entirely different era; if Western society was like it is now and had modern technology on it's side, then Hitler would've been written off as a madman who was major danger to society.

People are trying to discredit Trump's position on illegal immigrants because an independent contractor he hired decades ago whistled up a dozen or two for a construction project; others were calling into question Bernie Sander's whole campaign because one photo he claimed was of him might not have actually been of him. That same type of journalism would be all over the juicy details in Mein Kampf.

I.e. Hitler and Trump are distinctly different people who are products of different societies and eras.

Edited March 6, 2016 by The DanMan

[blah the Prussian]

Hitler's reign was a product of an entirely different era; if Western society was like it is now and had modern technology on it's side, then Hitler would've been written off as a madman who was major danger to society.

People are trying to discredit Trump's position on illegal immigrants because an independent contractor he hired decades ago whistled up a dozen or two for a construction project; others were calling into question Bernie Sander's whole campaign because one photo he claimed was of him might not have actually been of him. That same type of journalism would be all over the juicy details in Mein Kampf.

I.e. Hitler and Trump are distinctly different people who are products of different societies and eras.

Ah, I thought you meant if the Internet existed in the thirties. I will say, though, that modern society is very much a product of the Nazis and the Second World War. The Nazis are one of the main reasons we are so sensitive to Trump's rhetoric now.

[BBM]

@Yojinbo- I'm not American. I also don't think Hillary did as bad a job as people make it out to be. However, the point I was trying to make was that holding arguably one of the five most important positions in the US government is better preparation for the pressures and realities of being the president than simply being a governor would.

Hitler's reign was a product of an entirely different era; if Western society was like it is now and had modern technology on it's side, then Hitler would've been written off as a madman who was major danger to society.
People are trying to discredit Trump's position on illegal immigrants because an independent contractor he hired decades ago whistled up a dozen or two for a construction project; others were calling into question Bernie Sander's whole campaign because one photo he claimed was of him might not have actually been of him. That same type of journalism would be all over the juicy details in Mein Kampf.

I.e. Hitler and Trump are distinctly different people who are products of different societies and eras.

But in the end, neither of those things have done serious damage to Trump or Sanders. I could argue that Trump is a madman who is a major danger to society, and yet despite all our modern technology, it seems as if he's going to become the Republican nominee. I think that the Trump-Hitler comparisons are overblown, mostly because I don't think Trump actually believes in all of of what he says, but I also think you're underestimating the kind of support Hitler had at the time.

[Sunwoo]

From what I've learned/researched, Democratic beliefs are mostly toxic. For example, Obuma and the other Democrats cry gun control problems for terrorist attacks like the one at that CA Christmas party, while the Republicans say it's a terrorist problem. More gun control isn't going to fix anything, these terrorists get guns elsewhere/illegally. More gun control is just going to take away guns from people who would use/keep them responsibly. My stepdad told me that a country, I think it was Sweden, actually requires everybody to own a gun. Their crime rate is like zero, because no one in their right mind is going to attack people who have guns.

Sweden does not have guns

Most of Europe do not have guns

Their gun violence is next to zero because they don't have guns

If you're going to say something like the bolded, please do your research beforehand.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Sunwoo

[The DanMan]

But in the end, neither of those things have done serious damage to Trump or Sanders. I could argue that Trump is a madman who is a major danger to society, and yet despite all our modern technology, it seems as if he's going to become the Republican nominee. I think that the Trump-Hitler comparisons are overblown, mostly because I don't think Trump actually believes in all of of what he says, but I also think you're underestimating the kind of support Hitler had at the time.

The example was more of "This is how much mudslinging there is nowadays" than saying it's actually been that effective. Hitler had much, much more that could be dug up (a prison record, for one) and thrown around nowadays, to a much greater effect.

As somebody who enjoys learning about WWII and the events related to it, I understand the basic circumstances that brought about Hitler's rise to power. The Treaty of Versailles + a general global depression (of varying extents) wrecked the German economy beyond belief. Then Hitler was there, promising to restore the German nation; his ideas seemed to work, so people jumped on. The rest is history; as I've said, it was a very different era and society when this happened.

Edited March 6, 2016 by The DanMan

[Anacybele]

Sweden does not have guns

Most of Europe do not have guns

Their gun violence is next to zero because they don't have guns

If you're going to say something like the bolded, please do your research beforehand.

Uh, yeah, people already said it's Switzerland, not Sweden. SORRY. Geez. And I do do research, thank you very much. It's just that's hard to remember so much at once, okay?

Also, Australia once outlawed guns from what I heard. But their knife and other weapon violence just went up as a result. Guns are not the only weapons used in crimes. So taking away guns won't help lower crime rates at all.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Anacybele

[Sunwoo]

Uh, yeah, people already said it's Switzerland, not Sweden. SORRY. Geez. And I do do research, thank you very much. It's just that's hard to remember so much at once, okay?

Also, Australia once outlawed guns from what I heard. But their knife and other weapon violence just went up as a result. Guns are not the only weapons used in crimes. So taking away guns won't help lower crime rates at all.

If being able to distinguish between Sweden and Switzerland is too hard to remember at once, then I really don't know what to say to you.

Also, no duh other weapon violence is going to go up if you outlaw guns. What you should really be looking at is overall crime rate in the country as a whole. Even if other weapon violence did go up, did taking away the guns lower crime rate as a whole in that country? These are very basic simple thing.

Politics are one thing I don't really care to follow up on. But I've heard enough from Trump to know that I don't want him near the presidency, not ever. The biggest "fuck you" to every other country in existence, our foreign relations (even with our allies) will be in the toilet.

[BBM]

knives are generally a lot harder to kill people with than guns are. Do you want people to get stabbed or shot?

Also, yeah, nobody is expecting you to have perfect recall. They do, however, expect you to fact check before posting, especially when you know you're unsure about what exactly you're saying.

[Life]

The example was more of "This is how much mudslinging there is nowadays" than saying it's actually been that effective. Hitler had much, much more that could be dug up (a prison record, for one) and thrown around nowadays, to a much greater effect.

As somebody who enjoys learning about WWII and the events related to it, I understand the basic circumstances that brought about Hitler's rise to power. The Treaty of Versailles + a general global depression (of varying extents) wrecked the German economy beyond belief. Then Hitler was there, promising to restore the German nation; his ideas seemed to work, so people jumped on. The rest is history; as I've said, it was a very different era and society when this happened.

I think you're wrong here.

I really don't think it matters because xenophobia will always exist. The only difference between Trump and Hitler is the religion that's being attacked.

If Trump wins the presidency and passes a law which forces them to wear a crescent on their clothes, I will say "I told you so". Because based on the past 15 years, it's not a stretch to say that a lot of Americans are "scared" by Islam.

[Shin]

Also, Australia once outlawed guns from what I heard. But their knife and other weapon violence just went up as a result. Guns are not the only weapons used in crimes. So taking away guns won't help lower crime rates at all.

Whilst I don't really have the motivation to go into an in depth argument about gun control and gun related deaths, generally if you have more guns, you get more people getting killed by them. Gun control isn't necessarily about taking guns away from people. It's about making sure that the people who do have them are safe enough to have them, and that they're kept under strict regulation. You don't really need a dozen fully loaded assault rifles in your living room!

Back on topic. As a European, I quite like Sanders (for reasons other than KFC), because he seems a lot more in line with our politics. American Politics has always been interesting to observe, mostly because of how different it is to ours. If Americans are worried than Sanders is too socialist for them, they should see our NHS!

[eclipse]

But in the end, neither of those things have done serious damage to Trump or Sanders. I could argue that Trump is a madman who is a major danger to society, and yet despite all our modern technology, it seems as if he's going to become the Republican nominee. I think that the Trump-Hitler comparisons are overblown, mostly because I don't think Trump actually believes in all of of what he says, but I also think you're underestimating the kind of support Hitler had at the time.

What worries me about Trump is that he has a following that LIKES what he's saying about the other races/religions. Like, if he spewed what he did and everyone ignored him, that would be wonderful.

It's those followers that are the problem. Eventually, Trump will either have to come clean about the fact that he was being theatrical, or actually follow through, and at this point, neither option is palatable.

[BBM]

What worries me about Trump is that he has a following that LIKES what he's saying about the other races/religions. Like, if he spewed what he did and everyone ignored him, that would be wonderful.

It's those followers that are the problem. Eventually, Trump will either have to come clean about the fact that he was being theatrical, or actually follow through, and at this point, neither option is palatable.

His strategy is probably to become much more centrist/less theatrical after the primary, and bank on the fact that none of his base is going to vote for the opposing candidate anyways. This is essentially what every single candidate on either side does after winning the primary; the US electoral system encourages it. I'm hoping that he becomes alienating enough in the primary that nobody falls for the switch in the general election.

[Nobody]

Can't believe there are people in this thread equating Hillary to Trump.
Hillary wouldn't install flat taxes
Hillary wouldn't defund planned parenthood
Hillary would indicate a liberal supreme court candidate rather than a conservative one
Hillary wouldn't try to lower or even end minimal wage
Hillary wouldn't completely fuck up American foreign affairs. She doesn't suspect allied nations are "enemies"
Hillary wouldn't activile try to make the life of minorities harder than it is
Hillary wouldn't fuck up the economy of America by starting a lot of dumb protectionist measures. She doesn't think China is "stealing American jobs"

If you're a Sanders supporter who thinks Hillary is as bad as Trump, I don't know what to tell you. A Hillary presidence would probably be similar to Obama's and Bill's, which imo were pretty good.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Nobody

[Moblin Major General]

^Obama tried to fix what Bush gave him, but failed because he pushed through the right legislation at the wrong time. Also, much more time needs to pass in between candidates that are related, like between John and John Quincy, or William and Benjamin. Not like the 8 years between HW and Bush, or the potential 14 years in between Bill and Hillary. I will admit Obama's wasn't as bad as some people thought it was, but both the right and the left seem to dislike him. I personally think he was a James Buchanan, in that he couldn't get things passed that needed to be, and that the nation is now looking for a more radical leader.

[dondon151]

i'm always suspect when people claim obama to have been a bad president; in broad terms you can't really even consider him to have been ineffective.

Sweden does not have guns

actually, sweden does have guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

and not in the trivial sense of having very few guns

Edited March 6, 2016 by dondon151

[BBM]

The nation is looking for a more radical leader because the nation itself is more radical.

Obama is actually fairly progressive, though not as much as Sanders. But in his first term he tried compromising more because he wanted to balance pushing his agenda with getting re-elected. However, in his second term he didn't have to worry about it, which is why he pushed a lot more of his landmark policies and executive orders during that time. It also annoyed a lot of more centrist people though, which is why Congress went Republican.

[tuvarkz]

Can't believe there are people in this thread equating Hillary to Trump.

Hillary wouldn't install flat taxes

Hillary wouldn't defund planned parenthood

Hillary would indicate a liberal supreme court candidate rather than a conservative one

Hillary wouldn't try to lower or even end minimal wage

Hillary wouldn't completely fuck up American foreign affairs. She doesn't suspect allied nations are "enemies"

Hillary wouldn't activile try to make the life of minorities harder than it is

Hillary wouldn't fuck up the economy of America by starting a lot of dumb protectionist measures. She doesn't think China is "stealing American jobs"

If you're a Sanders supporter who thinks Hillary is as bad as Trump, I don't know what to tell you. A Hillary presidence would probably be similar to Obama's and Bill's, which imo were pretty good.

I won't talk about tax rates because my knowledge of economics doesn't reach that far, yet:

-Abortion remains a strongly divisive topic, and the ending of organisms carrying their own unique array of Human DNA is honestly nigh impossible to decide morally. Of course planned parenthood is not all about abortions, but when it remains a big part of it, that's an issue regarding it being funded by the government.

-The validity of a Constitution remains in how it remains constant over time-the more Conservative the only court of justice that could modify or interpret it means it will be less viable to change (And then, consider the following: Trump is far from establishment Republicans and might even nominate people that would normally be on the center between R and D)

-Minimal wage increases hurt small to middle sized companies far more than large sized ones, who have a larger margin of profit and can afford to make large relocations or have other ways to recover the money lost within their means-To all effects, minimal wage increase is just a small prick for large multinational corporations.

-Well, which countries in specific you would mean by "fucking up foreign affairs". An alliance with Russia could be very convenient, or if not, at least the situation between the two nations would be far less tense.

-Minorities: You mean illegal immigrants? This is a matter of enforcing the law. The Muslims that wouldn't be able to temporarily enter should eventually manage to do so, and aren't yet in US soil anyways.

-Stealing American jobs may be hyperbolical, but functionally China is taking more space in the global economy that used to belong to the US. International trade is all about who gets the most benefit of it, after all.

Indeed, Trump is not in any way similar to someone that has been heavily influenced by her multiple donors and still is in the unclear in a variety of very serious issues. And then, if indeed things go down the hole with Trump, then it's tabula rasa and things can be rebuilt from the start.

[Nobody]

My post wasn't an attack at trump supports nor was meant to change their opinions. It was aimed at people who support Sanders yet think Hillary and Trump are "the same". Abortion is controversial, but most Bernie supporters support it. I think virtually all Bernie supporters would rather have a liberal judge at the supreme court rather than a conservative -or as you claim moderate- one. Virtually all Bernie Sanders supporters want a higher minimal wage. Most Bernie Sanders supporters want America to be closer to Scandinavia and also to help underdeveloped countries. Most Bernie Sanders supporters want immigration laws to be more lenient. My post wasn't aimed at you, who seem to think a Trump presidency could be acceptable, but rather at Bernie supporters who think Hillary is as bad as they think Trump is, pointing out that Hillary is way closer to Sanders than she is to Trump.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Nobody

[Anacybele]

If being able to distinguish between Sweden and Switzerland is too hard to remember at once, then I really don't know what to say to you.

Did I say that was the problem? No, I simply meant that I couldn't remember exactly which one my stepdad had said.

Also, nobody should be comparing any candidates to Hitler. He was a madman who caused a genocide. I don't think any of our candidates would go that low.

I don't agree with a higher minimum wage. I mean, maybe going from $7.50 to maybe $8.50 would be okay. But nothing more than that. If people want to make more money, GET A BETTER JOB. Get off your butt, get educated/experience and get a good job. I hate that a fast food worker in New York can make the same money as a surgeon now. That's just not fair. Surgeons go to a lot of school and get a lot of skill to earn the money they make. What do these burger flippers do to deserve $15 an hour?

Edited March 7, 2016 by Anacybele

[Lord Raven]

Also, nobody should be comparing any candidates to Hitler. He was a madman who caused a genocide. I don't think any of our candidates would go that low.

I don't think any of them would either - but Trump's methods are very similar to what Hitler did when Hitler came to power. I just don't think Trump is genuine enough to worry me, but it is very eerie how similar it is.

I don't agree with a higher minimum wage. I mean, maybe going from $7.50 to maybe $8.50 would be okay. But nothing more than that. If people want to make more money, GET A BETTER JOB. Get off your butt, get educated/experience and get a good job.

You're making this sound significantly easier than it is.

I hate that a fast food worker in New York can make the same money as a surgeon now. That's just not fair. Surgeons go to a lot of school and get a lot of skill to earn the money they make. What do these burger flippers do to deserve $15 an hour?

[citation needed]

I'd also like to add that the opening salary for the average theoretical physicist phd is 40-50k/year and they go through 4 years of college (or longer) + 5 years of a phd (at least) + 3 years in a post doc (at least) and they still don't make much, especially considering their hours.

Having that said, raising it from 7.50 to 8.50... okay... except that it's really hard to live on 7.50 an hour and it is not very easy to change jobs. It is also very difficult to get an education in this country unless your parents are supremely poor, and when you do you have loans out your ass that you have to pay for before you can really even do any more education or leave where you are. I really cannot speak from experience here because I'm lucky as hell with a full ride through college and graduate school paid for me, but I know many people who have to sit on their hands and work some really small paying job because they could not afford college, could not get grants, and could not get scholarships, and they can't get a proper job with just a bachelor's.

Granted, raising the minimum wage won't solve this issue - we need much more shit to solve this issue - but it'll make it a hell of a lot less shitty to be in.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Lord Raven

[dondon151]

I hate that a fast food worker in New York can make the same money as a surgeon now. That's just not fair. Surgeons go to a lot of school and get a lot of skill to earn the money they make. What do these burger flippers do to deserve $15 an hour?

now you know that this isn't true. do the math yourself and figure out how many hours per week someone needs to work to make the same money as a surgeon.

ana, this is why people don't take you seriously when you claim to have done reading and research.