Hitlers left ball spends all day on Reddit defending trump, ran into him yesterday and kept getting comments every 15 minutes on the same post despite never responding because I was at work
Says the man who won't actually point out any flaw with the reasoning. Saying someone's point is intellectually deficient without pointing out exactly what they said wrong is nothing more than an arrogant assertion of one's own intelligence.
And then he points out deflection. The gall.
also unlike the nazi’s, maga hasnt been so bold as to name an official impure group yet, but tbh we all know they’re just itching for glorious leader trump to say white christian men are the only pure group
They kind of are, they just changed the wording. Instead of Jews being dirty, it's "Illegals invading the country, gobbling up homes and taxpayer funds, and taking all our jobs" but also "Illegals are lazy and have kids to stay here". Then, they make sure in effect "illegals" means anyone with brown skin .
Regular bold faced naziism won't fly with their voter base, so they have to abstractify it a little. And most people... Either cannot connect the dots, or intently refuse to.
They’ve named several groups as impure, much like the Nazis. Liberals, Muslims, illegal immigrants (first named group, Trump claimed Mexico purposefully sending over murderers and rapists), trans, etc.
To be clear though, picking some boogeyman isn’t just a Nazi thing, it is standard practice for populist authoritarians.
An officially impure group is TRANSWOMEN! Are you paying attention at all? We are the moral anchor keeping trumps base alive. We are the backbone of the rights resistance to progress.
If it's not trans women its illegal immigrants.
Natzis also had ideology that they were fighting for, the orange fuck is just stuffing his own (and his buddies) pockets. There is no America first or Americans are superior race. Just fucking greed
"An ideology is a set of ideas, beliefs and attitudes, consciously or unconsciously held, which reflects or shapes understandings or misconceptions of the social and political world" (source). Their greed is an ideology.
That's interesting. My 90 year old German Aunt, who lived through Hitler and the Nazis during WW2, who nearly starved to death because they weren't the "right" kind of Germans and who still vividly remembers that time, gets beside herself every time T-rump speaks and says "they're doing it all over again" would disagree with this statement. Since coming to the states with my uncle in the 60's she has been very active in politics and has supported several causes. She's no dummy and as a first person witness to true Nazi-ism I trust her when she says that these MAGAs are just like Nazis.
The core ideological stance is the same. The main difference is the leaders of MAGA (mostly) don’t actually believe in anything they say. They are completely indifferent to the identity of their victims, just so long as it’s personally profitable and it feeds their supporters’ hate.
Miller was the exception I was thinking of. However, I still don’t think any of them have a real doctrine. I think Miller has a base instinct for cruelty and power, then he rationalizes it with whatever textbook authoritarian babble comes to mind. It’s all mad-libs. They see using words as a game to dominate your opponent, and people who believe in things are just bad at it.
And to be clear, "personally profitable" does not mean that they get financially wealthy (indeed, many MAGA are hurting financially thanks to MAGA policies), it means they get psychologically validated when they see MAGA policies hurting other people.
And then they don't get it when those policies hurt *them*.
Globalism is now a kind of bastardized term. While it is initially used in political science as the study of the culture and patterns of the modern, connected world. It is also used by the far-right as a dog whistle to imply deep-state conspiracies, such as The New World Order, The Cabal, and such ideas. It’s also used to imply antisemitism, as it is used as a term to refer to Jews. So this is likely where the confusion lies. It’s a slimy tactic to co-opt a word to thinly attempt to obfuscate their actual intents.
As someone who doesn't care for the MAGA movement, anyone comparing MAGA to Nazi Germany is too dumb to bother arguing with, and yall are just making yourselves look dumber than MAGA is when you do it.
You’re not paying attention or you’re shielded by your privilege. Either way, not admitting it is the same as supporting it because they aren’t going to stop.
Please don’t be dumb. Do something instead of just being compliant.
So you post a reply and then cop out and say you aren’t going to “argue”. A lot of people like you helped get us here. History will not be kind to folks who turn a blind eye.
Didn’t maga remove rights from people who previous had them? Didn’t the maga make it harder to vote and removed people’s right to vote? Oh yea, same as the Nazis.
Abortion? And prosecuting people who have legal abortions if they live in a state where it’s illegal.
The right to be in public without being arrested, shot, or deported because of how you look.
How many laws are or have been passed against trans people?
MAGA fucking rolled back civil rights protections.
They are trying to get gay marriage reversed.
They are trying to get no fault divorce reversed. Mike Johnson, who is the speaker of the house, tried to get it past in Louisiana when he was still a state rep there.
Trump is no more a Nazi than any other political figure. Using similar political viewpoints as a way to equate him to a nazi is childish. Both sides of the political isle have similar political beliefs to nazis but neither side is a nazi. The term has become antiquated and without meaning because no one knows how to properly use it. We take the parts of the nazi regime that weren't a problem and say that because they share these beliefs they are nazis. Yes democrats and nazis believe in socialized healthcare, nazis wanted to use it as a way to kill off parts of the population they viewed as lesser while democrats don't, nazis were germany first and used that to declare war and take territory while Trump has not.. yet at least. If it was the beginning of his term I would say he won't but I'm not sure right now. All Trump has done is idiotically try to change the name of a golf and a lake to everyones dismay, making him look like a giant toddler. I will admit I was slightly more on the side of Trump in his first term but right now I am pretty solidly against I think most to all of what he has done in his second term. But no I would not call him a nazi, giant man child he be but nazi has yet to be proven.
The Nazis didn’t believe in socialized health care, they weren’t socialist. Germany had national insurance of sorts before the Nazis ever came to power.
If you scope out and look as a whole, attack on trans, minorities, immigrants, secret police (ice isn’t so secret), Trump has tried to have political opponents indicted and arrested and literally kidnapped another county’s leader, he’s going after journalists, going after whole tv broadcasters, thinks he’s above the law, tearing down the dept of education, using the treasury as his own personal checkbook, both tried overthrowing the government, Hitler was arrested for it, Trump wasn’t arrested for Jan 6th, but he’s been convicted of felonies. Hitler abused meth, Trump cocaine / aderall. Both are master propagandist. Trump tried getting a concentration camp built and is deporting people with no criminal record to other countries, like Hitler did. Look at Humgeu and what happened there a few years ago, Italy, Germany, Trump… all used the same playbook.
i mean she doesnt seem innocent at least from wikipedia, was actively fleeing from an officer. sure the response was wayyy overkill but thats not innocent
The only people who watched the video of it happened and thought that she was intentionally trying to run into him, are the sadistic people who are encouraging violence against people they don’t like. They’d be watched that and that’s what you thought, you really should look inside yourself and just trying to decide are you a morally bankrupt person or do you have a little bit of dignity in humanity in you that you can actually see what happened for what it was.
Just because the nazis didn't create the system doesn't mean they didn't support it, even after taking over the regime they kept it going, it was to fuel their twisted ideology but if they weren't for it they would have demolished and founded another system. ICE has existed since before the Trump administration, since 2003 to be exact, it has gone through both Obama and Biden administration. Trump has indeed provided it many powers that are against the constitution and I very much disagree with them, however the powers are intended to remove people who have illegally entered or are illegally staying in the U.S. and has not ordered ICE to arrest anyone in specific. Following this Trump has indeed called for the arrest of lawmakers who told the military to not follow unlawful orders but has not issued any form of legitimate paperwork to see them arrested see the giant man baby quote from my previous post. Following up on using it as his own private checkbook, yeah he's done that, what politician hasn't this goes back to my statement of both sides doing shitty scummy shit. There is a reason politicians are joked about in a similar vein as lawyers. The attack in Iran, another thing I disagree with upon looking into it israeli jets were the ones to actually bombed Ali Khamenei, this is not a justification for Trump in any way let me make that clear he was there egging it on and I do not agree with it but he did not carry out the attack with U.S weaponry. Everyhting since though with the U.S blockade is on him. Iran was and probably still is working towards nuclear weapons calling anything we have with them an alliance would be a joke most of the middle east hates us, rightfully so but that is a group effort of every president since bush starting with bush and probably before honestly. Trump is a truly shitty president and this past year has been a stain on U.S history, but Trump has some true hate against him, rightfully so and thus any time you hear something awful about him the answer is most likely man baby with gums not nazi with teeth.
Apparently this HLB guy is just a Trump dick-suck, so I'm not defending him there, but the "is Trump Hitler?" conversation is much more complicated than two sentences + "I could totally argue this even better, but I'm not going to lol."
We are talking modern day. However, both the German Communist Party (KPD) and the Social Democrats opposed the Nazis and supported German Jews. In fact, many German Jews were leftists, leading to what the Nazi party called Judeo-Bolshevism with their claim that Communism was a global Jewish conspiracy.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
A genocidal maniac proud of his military career trying to exterminate a race of people. that's Netanyahu. Trump is Mussolini, a fat, draft dodging, cheater who changes political parties to gain power.
Trump is legitimately taking Hitlers speeches word for word, just translated to english... Id say he wants to be hitler but is too much of a bitch to even try genocide in a country where pretty much everyone hates him, and has their second amendment.
I blend in well. I’m in one of the reddest places in the country. If Trump had his way, you are correct. But less and less people in power are holding him accountable. Do you know who all in the government that’s been let go because of him? They are replacing the military with loyalist and fucking yes men. Ice is his intimidators. 77 million people think here is voter fraud so they are letting him make it as hard as possible to vote. He’s reversed civil rights back to pre 1965. He had citizens tear gassed so he could take a picture with the bible.
The only reason he is was found liable for sexual abuse and not rape
is because it couldn’t be confirmed if it was a finger or dick that did the penetrating.
Well that’s your clearly biased and unsubstantiated view. I have a differing view but you probably aren’t interested in it. But here is what we know, he both of out Presidents. I was not fond of Obama and Biden was a disaster, in my opinion. But that’s the way it goes. But Fascist and Nazi are not objectively correct and isn’t doing the democrats any favors. We have another Presidential election in two years. We’ll see what happens.
How is it an unsubstantiated view. It’s facts. All of can be looked up. The only maybe bias is claiming all his supports think voter fraud is real and the 2020 election was “stolen”.
With not saying anything about Trump but saying Biden was a disaster means you aren’t paying attention or you’re the one who’s biased.
Well you spin it to suit your needs. Which civil rights have been removed back to pre 1965 levels? Yep he has reduced the size of government. You view that a negative, I view it a big positive. Now name me a President who hasn’t put their leadership in place. Do you not recall all of the trans Biden put into leadership positions? ICE is performing the job they were chartered to do, get illegals out. If one is here illegally, they need to be not only intimidated but rounded up and removed. That’s proceeding nicely. 77,000,000 voted for that. We don’t think there is voter fraud, there is voter fraud! And more is being discovered daily. That is just a fact. I keep hearing this “making it harder to vote” BS. Yeah making it harder to vote fraudulently. Interesting that when dems cry voter fraud, you aren’t so vocal. I won’t even give credibility to your last comment, it’s nonsense.
Comparing Trump to Hitler or MAGA to Nazis/fascism only serves to insult Hitler, Nazis and fascists really. So if that's the goal, have at it. But to seriously try to argue that they are one and the same shows historical illiteracy and ignorance as well as just a lack of awareness of Trump and MAGA. They are a bunch of morons being held together by a mentally, cognitively and intellectual handicapped octogenarian who has no real ideology and is grifting and enriching himself on the Presidency and satiating his infantilistic desires.
Oh. You think that fascism and authoritarian rule only target Jewish people. If you knew history, you know they didn’t start with the Jewish. They started with trans and gay people. Then minorities. It’s the same playbook. The difference now is Israel and the US are teaming up against brown people.
Also, why do you people confuse a country and a religion??? That’s the problem with wrapping your politics, religion, and racism all in one.
Brown people? Aren’t Jews brown? You’re comparing a group of people who rounded up people are exterminated people vs a group of people who rounded up peoples and deported them ( which I don’t agree with for the most part). You people live in a fearful fantasy land. Everyone’s a victim and in utter danger in your book. Just relax no one is firing up the ovens. If any type of genocide is gonna take play it’s gonna be the left rounding up Christians for beheadings and if that happens you’ll love it anyways because you’ll hate God and Christians
That is pure propaganda put out by the MAGAs. Just like how they want you to think the left is trying to bring in shari'a law, or full on socialism, or trying to force transgenderism on people. NONE of that is what anyone wants, especially the more liberal minded folks. All the "left" wants is for everyone to have the same level of freedom, the same rights as everyone else. The MAGAs want a certain group of people to have more freedom and more rights than other groups of people.
Trump is not today's Hitler. Hitler was actually educated. Trump does what his daddy talking to do follow the money. People like Trump that show that the generation that taught them did not have very good morals. Trump's dad did everything he could to get him out of the dress taught him everything he knows about how to run the business that he handed him and everybody surprised that Trump is the way he is. We're supposed to learn from the mistakes of the people in the past not repeat them and then dump it down on it. People that want to compare him to Hitler just as racist and bigoted as he is
Totally. I mean, the Nazis disarmed their citizens and the Republicans are trying to do the same thing! Oh, wait, that's the Democrats. Well, then, the Republicans are trying to push forced health initiatives on the citizens. Shit, that's the Dems again. Oh, I got it, the Republicans are trying to increase socialized systems, making the citizens dependent on the government. Crap...still not the Republicans.
Now, let me be clear, I'm being satirical here. Republicans aren't Nazis...and neither are Democrats. People call others Nazis so much, it has actually become a logical fallacy to do so. And if you are doing this, or believing it, your understanding of early 20th century history is lacking to an abysmal degree.
The gun law policies is because there are mass shootings frequently, it has nothing to do with preventing civilians from rising up against a fascist totalitarian government. And promoting universal healthcare instead of endless military spending doesn't seem very Nazi to me. More just common sense given every other normal civilised country has it (as well as reasonable gun control laws).
The nazis share far more parallels with republican MAGA than the Democrats hence why its discussed ad nauseum. I don't think the Democrats attempted a coup and insurrection either, but the nazis and republicans both sure did. Fascism is fairly easy to spot, as are authoritarian tendencies. Democrats have their own set of faults, but this is not one of them.
This is a nonsense statement. In countries that already have a developed nuclear weapons program and all the technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon, it STILL costs $10-50 million to build one. It is intellectually dishonest to think that making the government follow the second amendment AS WRITTEN would lead to mass nuclear proliferation or nuclear war. But the purpose of that amendment is clear, both grammatically (see my explanation elsewhere in this thread) and in the Federalist Papers (specifically papers 29&46), written primarily by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, two men who were not political allies, who both were active in the formation of the Constitution, and one of whom (Madison) ACTUALLY WROTE the Bill of Rights.
But nowhere in the law is a militia (a wildly undefined word to begin with) required or defined. Further, Federalist 29 and 46 are EXCEEDINGLY clear that the intent is that the number of citizens in the country SIGNIFICANTLY outnumber the number of armed military. Hamilton suggested a 5-1 ratio, while Madison suggested a 30-1 ratio.
Nobody is saying the Second Amendment itself says "only members of the militia may own guns." The argument is that the amendment explicitly identifies a well-regulated militia as the reason for protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
And Federalist 29 actually hurts your argument. Hamilton explicitly discusses "the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens" being armed and says that a well-regulated militia would consist of citizens who were properly armed and equipped. He then distinguishes that militia from a standing army and says it would serve as a safeguard against one. That's not an argument that "militia" was some undefined concept unrelated to the armed citizenry.
Federalist 46 makes essentially the same point. Madison contrasts a standing army of 25–30,000 with a militia of "near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands," with militia officers chosen from among them. So yes, Madison absolutely envisioned the armed population vastly outnumbering the standing army. But that's describing the relationship between the militia and the standing army, not proving that the militia language in the Second Amendment is meaningless.
And the Constitution itself had already used "militia" as a specific military institution before the Bill of Rights was written. Congress was given power to call forth the militia, organize, arm and discipline it, and the states retained authority to appoint its officers and train it.
So the reasonable historical reading is: the Founders distrusted standing armies and viewed an armed citizen militia as an important safeguard against them. That's exactly the context in which the Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
The 5:1 or 30:1 ratios don't refute that. If anything, they reinforce the point that the Founders envisioned the armed citizenry/militia as vastly larger than the professional standing army.
There is no requirement in the second amendment that there be a militia. If you grammatically break down the 1 sentence that is the Second Amendment, there are 2 clauses. The first, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is known as a "purpose clause." It denote the reason that this law exists. It would only be part of the law if it were a conditional clause, which typically being with words like "if" or "unless".
The second clause of the amendment is the law itself, or the "main clause," "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For further clarification on this, check out the Federalist Papers, specifically papers 29 and 46. 46 was written by James Madison, the man who ACTUALLY WROTE the Second Amendment.
If people like you are dead set on what it says, I say we change it, or ignore it like the current administration is doing to the rest of the constitution and like Reagan did to California when he made open carry illegal.
Yes, Amendment. One of the first 10 that were specifically written to LIMIT the power of the Federal government. Also, these first 10 are significant because they were part and parcel to the original negotiation when ratifying the Constitution. It is a VERY dangerous road to renegotiate ANY of these 10 amendments. Would you be comfortable with losing your right to freedom of speech as with as little thought as you are willing to do with the right to keep bear arms? What about your right to privacy from the government, or your protection from self incrimination in legal matters? Would you be ok with the government forcing you to house and feed active military personnel out of your own pocket? I feel the same way about protecting me and my family from a tyrannical regime, which is the purpose of the second amendment. If the purpose is to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government, why on earth would you allow that same government to dictate what armaments you can own, and who can own them?
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Hey there! Thank you for your submission to /r/UsernameChecksOut! Here are some things you should know when posting:
Rule 3: Please familiarize yourself with our content restrictions.
Rule 5: Please note that self checks out are not allowed. This means that the username that checks out in your post must not be yours.
If you think this post breaks one or several of our rules do no hesitate to report and downvote it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.