National Stats during Obama Admin

[*bfine32*]

(01-20-2017, 06:35 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Strange you would only call out the reaction to the traitor comment, rather than the traitor comment and the reaction to the traitor comment. 

#fakebipartisanship

I didn't call out either comment; so I do not see what is "strange" (but I do admire your constant effort); just found the response quite partisan and amusing. If two folks want to exchange hyperbole; have at it. But if one wants to be a referee then call it down the middle.

Both titles are silly. Do you have an opinion on the subject?

[Belsnickel]

(01-20-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Strange that you would only find his suggestion that Obama is a Traitor to be hilarious and not the comparison of Trump to Hitler that he was replying to.

Seems we only appreciate the words used to incite partisonship that support our side. We should all strive to be more bi-patisan

Strange, I didn't even notice it was a Hitler reference until you said something. I didn't realize that Furor was a misguided attempt at the word Führer until you just said something.

For the record, I am against commentary like that, drawing parallels to Hitler in that way. I do not mind analyzing the rhetoric of Trump and finding similarities between rising despots as several political scientists have done, but uninformed lines drawn between Trump and Hitler, or any political leader and Hitler, are not helpful.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-20-2017, 07:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't call out either comment; so I do not see what is "strange" (but I do admire your constant effort); just found the response quite partisan and amusing. If two folks want to exchange hyperbole; have at it. But if one wants to be a referee then call it down the middle.

Both titles are silly. Do you have an opinion on the subject?

By quoting only one comment, you only called attention to one comment. By only calling attention to the one comment you revealed your partisanship, ironically, in a comment denouncing the very behavior of which you're guilty. 

Do you have an opinion on the subject or do you just want to continuing feigning you're not guilty of the same partisan behavior you're denouncing?

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2017, 12:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: By quoting only one comment, you only called attention to one comment. By only calling attention to the one comment you revealed your partisanship, ironically, in a comment denouncing the very behavior of which you're guilty. 

Do you have an opinion on the subject or do you just want to continuing feigning you're not guilty of the same partisan behavior you're denouncing?

I could explain to you how you're feeble attempt at gotcha is totally devoid of any logic, but why waste the key strokes. The poster I addressed understood and recognized the point; as I am sure others that read it did. I even used the self-inclusive pronoun"we" when making the point

Sure I have point on the OP and shared it early in the thread. You most likely missed it because a couple guys got into a pissing contest for a few pages. Perhaps someone will further engage you in that; as I am done engaging you in this.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-21-2017, 09:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I could explain to you how you're feeble attempt at gotcha is totally devoid of any logic, but why waste the key strokes. The poster I addressed understood and recognized the point; as I am sure others that read it did. I even used the self-inclusive pronoun"we" when making the point

Sure I have point on the OP and shared it early in the thread. You most likely missed it because a couple guys got into a pissing contest for a few pages. Perhaps someone will further engage you in that; as I am done engaging you in this.

Here's the thing about people genuinely taking the high road. They just take it. Without all the fanfare and the "Hey, look at me. I'm taking the high road. Won't be able to "engage" you."

[Dill]

(01-20-2017, 06:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Strange that you would only find his suggestion that Obama is a Traitor to be hilarious and not the comparison of Trump to Hitler that he was replying to.

Seems we only appreciate the words used to incite partisonship that support our side. We should all strive to be more bi-patisan

Seems like we ought to be checking how well the words apply to whatever they are describing.  There is no legal or responsible definition of "traitor" that could apply to Obama.  In Nazi Germany, the term "traitor" came to be extended to anyone who opposed the will of Hitler and his party. Only by adopting that logic could Obama be considered a traitor.

Comparisons between Trump and Hitler may be impractical, since in the US the term gets bandied about quite a bit with little attention to referential accuracy.  Obama gets called a Hitler, for example, because he promotes healthcare and supports a woman's right to choose. Whenever the term is used, the debate is only ever about the fact it was used; people don't bother to check the degree to which it might fit. But this does not mean they are always way off or simply partisan vilification.

Still, we may see more Trump/Hitler comparisons in the future, since Hitler was authoritarian, populist, pro-life, militarist, and misogynist. 

He hated liberals and "leftists" and maintained control among party elements by setting them against one another, brooked no criticism, vilified the "Lugenpresse" and German intelligentsia, and made a pact of peaceful coexistence with Russia (to the consternation of Left and Right). He classified world leaders not as good or bad, but strong or weak--hence the respect for the Russian leader, with whom he could more closely identify. 

He set out to "Make Germany Great Again" with an anti-immigration, anti-minority, pro-infrastructure platform with the support of only a third of German voters and control of the executive, and by appointing Army officers and wealthy industrialists to cabinet positions. (Many Germans who opposed Hitler simply went along with him, figuring he would change once he got into power and/or the inertia of existing government and military industrial complex would keep him in check.)

His "Germany first" policies quickly evolved into "Germans first" policies which defined many loyal Germans as racially non-Germans and unwanted immigrants, and set the stage for the ethnic cleansing of Germany, first by expulsion of families, then by imprisonment, then by gas chambers.

There are important differences though. Hitler had first-hand military experience and better impulse control. Also, he came to power in moment when Germany was on its knees militarily, politically and economically, and when its constitution included a clause allowing for its chancellor to assume dictatorial control in times of political crisis. Trump, on the other hand, has no impulse control or military experience,and assumes power in a still democratic US with no dictatorship clause and the worlds' largest military and economy.  

What we ought to do is strive to apply terms accurately. We may learn something from history if we examine it closely before seeing only partisan "name-calling" whenever an historical analogy is invoked.

[Dill]

(01-20-2017, 02:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'd rather we not continue arguing about it, and that I hope we have learned a valuable lesson about invading other countries that you must also have a solid rebuilding/exit plan. But unfortunately, I doubt we will.

Ok Mike. Thanks for responding. I'll give you the last word on the issue.

[*bfine32*]

(01-21-2017, 04:43 PM)Dill Wrote: Seems like we ought to be checking how well the words apply to whatever they are describing.  There is no legal or responsible definition of "traitor" that could apply to Obama.  In Nazi Germany, the term "traitor" came to be extended to anyone who opposed the will of Hitler and his party. Only by adopting that logic could Obama be considered a traitor.

Comparisons between Trump and Hitler may be impractical, since in the US the term gets bandied about quite a bit with little attention to referential accuracy.  Obama gets called a Hitler, for example, because he promotes healthcare and supports a woman's right to choose. Whenever the term is used, the debate is only ever about the fact it was used; people don't bother to check the degree to which it might fit. But this does not mean they are always way off or simply partisan vilification.

Still, we may see more Trump/Hitler comparisons in the future, since Hitler was authoritarian, populist, pro-life, militarist, and misogynist. 

He hated liberals and "leftists" and maintained control among party elements by setting them against one another, brooked no criticism, vilified the "Lugenpresse" and German intelligentsia, and made a pact of peaceful coexistence with Russia (to the consternation of Left and Right). He classified world leaders not as good or bad, but strong or weak--hence the respect for the Russian leader, with whom he could more closely identify. 

He set out to "Make Germany Great Again" with an anti-immigration, anti-minority, pro-infrastructure platform with the support of only a third of German voters and control of the executive, and by appointing Army officers and wealthy industrialists to cabinet positions. (Many Germans who opposed Hitler simply went along with him, figuring he would change once he got into power and/or the inertia of existing government and military industrial complex would keep him in check.)

His "Germany first" policies quickly evolved into "Germans first" policies which defined many loyal Germans as racially non-Germans and unwanted immigrants, and set the stage for the ethnic cleansing of Germany, first by expulsion of families, then by imprisonment, then by gas chambers.

There are important differences though. Hitler had first-hand military experience and better impulse control. Also, he came to power in moment when Germany was on its knees militarily, politically and economically, and when its constitution included a clause allowing for its chancellor to assume dictatorial control in times of political crisis. Trump, on the other hand, has no impulse control or military experience,and assumes power in a still democratic US with no dictatorship clause and the worlds' largest military and economy.  

What we ought to do is strive to apply terms accurately. We may learn something from history if we examine it closely before seeing only partisan "name-calling" whenever an historical analogy is invoked.

Say what you mean. Do you condone or agree with the comparison of Trump to Hitler or are you just pointing out what others may say when they compare Trump to a man the was responsible for the extermination of millions?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-21-2017, 07:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Say what you mean.

Oh, the irony. 

[Dill]

(01-21-2017, 07:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Say what you mean. Do you condone or agree with the comparison of Trump to Hitler or are you just pointing out what others may say when they compare Trump to a man the was responsible for the extermination of millions?

I said what I mean.

I mean: 1) we ought to check whether and how well the words apply to whatever they are describing before complaining they have been applied.

And  2) We may learn something from history if we examine it closely before seeing only partisan "name-calling" whenever an historical analogy is invoked.

If someone said Trump is like Hitler because Trump is responsible for the extermination of millions, I would want to see the evidence, as I am aware of no such extermination. If there is no evidence, I would call the assertion a lie.

If someone asserted a connection between authoritarianism, militarism, the hatred of liberals and immigrants, and the extermination of millions, I would agree that there is a connection in the case of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and many other lesser genocides. There are people with such traits in all countries, but they are usually blocked by traditional and/or liberal institutions and only gain power during perceived or real crises. These are not desirable traits in a US leader, and should be criticized in whomever they appear.

If someone asserts an analogy between Trump (or any US politician) and Hitler on some point of undesirable behavior or policy, then I would check to see whether the analogy fits before pronouncing it simply partisan vindictiveness. If it doesn't fit then I would condemn both the analogy and the act of making it. But if it does fit then I would not waste time complaining the analogy was made or denying it,and suggest, rather, that Mr. Trump alter his behavior or change the policy in question. When he does, the analogies will disappear.


Same if the analogy is made to a politician I support. E.g., if Elizabeth Warren declared herself "militaristic" and ready to steal Iraqi oil, torture insurgents, deport Dreamers and ban Muslim immigration, I would not yell "partisan" if someone compared her to Hitler. I would if she were compared to Hitler for demanding health care for children of illegal immigrants.

We are living in a post-truth era now, but I intend to swim against the current.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 04:19 AM)Dill Wrote: I said what I mean.

I mean: 1) we ought to check whether and how well the words apply to whatever they are describing before complaining they have been applied.

And  2) We may learn something from history if we examine it closely before seeing only partisan "name-calling" whenever an historical analogy is invoked.

If someone said Trump is like Hitler because Trump is responsible for the extermination of millions, I would want to see the evidence, as I am aware of no such extermination. If there is no evidence, I would call the assertion a lie.

If someone asserted a connection between authoritarianism, militarism, the hatred of liberals and immigrants, and the extermination of millions, I would agree that there is a connection in the case of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and many other lesser genocides. There are people with such traits in all countries, but they are usually blocked by traditional and/or liberal institutions and only gain power during perceived or real crises. These are not desirable traits in a US leader, and should be criticized in whomever they appear.

If someone asserts an analogy between Trump (or any US politician) and Hitler on some point of undesirable behavior or policy, then I would check to see whether the analogy fits before pronouncing it simply partisan vindictiveness. If it doesn't fit then I would condemn both the analogy and the act of making it. But if it does fit then I would not waste time complaining the analogy was made or denying it,and suggest, rather, that Mr. Trump alter his behavior or change the policy in question. When he does, the analogies will disappear.


Same if the analogy is made to a politician I support. E.g., if Elizabeth Warren declared herself "militaristic" and ready to steal Iraqi oil, torture insurgents, deport Dreamers and ban Muslim immigration, I would not yell "partisan" if someone compared her to Hitler. I would if she were compared to Hitler for demanding health care for children of illegal immigrants.

We are living in a post-truth era now, but I intend to swim against the current.

So I take that as a yes. So sad.

[Dill]

(01-22-2017, 08:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So I take that as a yes. So sad.

Certainly, if Trump if adopts Hitler-like positions with regard to, for example, ethnic exclusion, torture and the robbing of other countries resources, you may take it as a "yes" that I would not object to Hitler analogies.

But perhaps you might also swim against the post-truth current and explain why my granting Hitler analogies would be "so sad," but not the Hitler-style policy positions?  

Pointing out that Trump has not yet gone as far as Hitler did in '42 is still not a great defense and does not obviate comparisons.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 03:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Certainly, if Trump if adopts Hitler-like positions with regard to, for example, ethnic exclusion, torture and the robbing of other countries resources, you may take it as a "yes" that I would not object to Hitler analogies.

But perhaps you might also swim against the post-truth current and explain why my granting Hitler analogies would be "so sad," but not the Hitler-style policy positions?  

Pointing out that Trump has not yet gone as far as Hitler did in '42 is still not a great defense and does not obviate comparisons.

I have seen no signs that Trump intends to exclude any American citizen based on ethnicity,nor have I seen him advocating "robbing" any country.

There is one reason folks try to use the Hitler comparison  and it is because it is the most negative comparison they can come up with. To say it is merely because of policies is disingenuous and to compare any man that is in in 70s, never murdered a sole to a many, and came to power thru free election to man that was responsible for the extermination of millions, was named dictator through congressional act, and caused a world war all by his 56th birthday is sad and frankly a stance no rational American should make.  

[GMDino]

(01-22-2017, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have seen no signs that Trump intends to exclude any American citizen based on ethnicity,nor have I seen him advocating "robbing" any country.

There is one reason folks try to use the Hitler comparison  and it is because it is the most negative comparison they can come up with. To say it is merely because of policies is disingenuous and to compare any man that is in in 70s, never murdered a sole to a many, and came to power thru free election to man that was responsible for the extermination of millions, was named dictator through congressional act, and caused a world war all by his 56th birthday is sad and frankly a stance no rational American should make.  

Well he does seem to want rid of illegal Mexicans (Yes, I realize they are illegal)

And he still thinks we should have/should take Iraq's oil.

And Hitler never murdered anyone himself.

And was elected.

The similarities seem to end there though.

[Bengalzona]

Trump is no Hitler.

Hitler had higher approval ratings when he was elected.

[Dill]

(01-22-2017, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have seen no signs that Trump intends to exclude any American citizen based on ethnicity,nor have I seen him advocating "robbing" any country.

There is one reason folks try to use the Hitler comparison  and it is because it is the most negative comparison they can come up with. To say it is merely because of policies is disingenuous and to compare any man that is in in 70s, never murdered a sole to a many, and came to power thru free election to man that was responsible for the extermination of millions, was named dictator through congressional act, and caused a world war all by his 56th birthday is sad and frankly a stance no rational American should make.  

Extermination of millions is not the ONE THING that makes a political figure comparable to Hitler.

We don't yet have the book on Trump's reign, so at the moment policies, behaviors, and values are all we have to compare.  Let's check out two examples.

Trump has repeatedly said "We should have taken the oil" in reference to the US conquest of Iraq based upon false premises. The international community reacts with horror, because it is unethical, illegal, and irresponsible to use one people's national military to rob another people's natural resources. Hitler did use the German military to do that, taking gold, paintings, machinery, oil, anything of value from conquered peoples. Saddam Hussein had that in mind when he invaded Kuwait.  People likened Saddam to Hitler for that.   

Trump has also come out for torture and "worse than waterboarding." It was the Nuremberg Trials of NAZIs that focused the international community on the issue of torture to outlaw it. Saddam Hussein was all for torture. But he did not exterminate millions.

The actions of horrible dictators around the world proceed from a value set which does not include empathy for others or respect for human rights and international law. Ataturk did not cleanse the Armenians because he believed strongly in individual property rights. Idi Amin did not torture dissenters because he prioritized human rights.

There are many people in many countries who would love to rob other countries and torture people they don't like. Just because the law prevents them or they have never had the power to do so doesn't mean they aren't "like Hitler" in terms of their value set.

Which brings us to my point about learning from history. Trump's statements do mirror the values of many odious dictators, not just Hitler. This claim can be factually checked. There is no reason to suppose those stated values will drive Trump towards ethical, legal and humane policy, is there?

It is SAD that so many Americans have no problem with Trump statements like the above or the values upon which they are founded. It is NOT SAD that some point this out.

There appear to be many Americans who are fine with Trump's statements above. They do not contest that Trump has affirmed the abovementioned national robbery and torture as sound policy goals (though some ethically confused Trumpsters might argue that taking Iraq's oil is not REALLY robbery; we deserve it to pay for our unjustified invasion). Why would they object to calling Trump Hitler but not object to torture or robbing other countries--the values which led Hitler to do what he did?

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 07:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Extermination of millions is not the ONE THING that makes a political figure comparable to Hitler.

We don't yet have the book on Trump's reign, so at the moment policies, behaviors, and values are all we have to compare.  Let's check out two examples.

Trump has repeatedly said "We should have taken the oil" in reference to the US conquest of Iraq based upon false premises. The international community reacts with horror, because it is unethical, illegal, and irresponsible to use one people's national military to rob another people's natural resources. Hitler did use the German military to do that, taking gold, paintings, machinery, oil, anything of value from conquered peoples. Saddam Hussein had that in mind when he invaded Kuwait.  People likened Saddam to Hitler for that.   

Trump has also come out for torture and "worse than waterboarding." It was the Nuremberg Trials of NAZIs that focused the international community on the issue of torture to outlaw it. Saddam Hussein was all for torture. But he did not exterminate millions.

The actions of horrible dictators around the world proceed from a value set which does not include empathy for others or respect for human rights and international law. Ataturk did not cleanse the Armenians because he believed strongly in individual property rights. Idi Amin did not torture dissenters because he prioritized human rights.

There are many people in many countries who would love to rob other countries and torture people they don't like. Just because the law prevents them or they have never had the power to do so doesn't mean they aren't "like Hitler" in terms of their value set.

Which brings us to my point about learning from history. Trump's statements do mirror the values of many odious dictators, not just Hitler. This claim can be factually checked. There is no reason to suppose those stated values will drive Trump towards ethical, legal and humane policy, is there?

It is SAD that so many Americans have no problem with Trump statements like the above or the values upon which they are founded. It is NOT SAD that some point this out.

There appear to be many Americans who are fine with Trump's statements above. They do not contest that Trump has affirmed the abovementioned national robbery and torture as sound policy goals (though some ethically confused Trumpsters might argue that taking Iraq's oil is not REALLY robbery; we deserve it to pay for our unjustified invasion). Why would they object to calling Trump Hitler but not object to torture or robbing other countries--the values which led Hitler to do what he did?

All that and you still didn't provide an example of Trump robbing a country of excluding any American citizen due to ethnicity. His take the oil comment was said as a way to dissuade ISIS or anyone else looking to take over the region. 

Feel free to compare Trump to Hitler; you're not alone, but sometimes we must look at the company we keep. 

[Dill]

(01-22-2017, 09:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All that and you still didn't provide an example of Trump robbing a country of excluding any American citizen due to ethnicity. His take the oil comment was said as a way to dissuade ISIS or anyone else looking to take over the region. 

Feel free to compare Trump to Hitler; you're not alone, but sometimes we must look at the company we keep. 

The question of Trump's similarity to Hitler does not require an example of "Trump robbing a country." How would he "rob a country" BEFORE he is president?

No one compares Trump to what Hitler DID. They compare his values, statements and policy preferences to those of Hitler.  You have not effectively disputed such a comparison on the points I made.

His "take the oil" comment was a criticism of Bush and Obama for not taking the oil after conquering Iraq. How would taking it "dissuade" anyone from "taking over" (as opposed to just a warning from the US military)? And how would it not be robbery, no matter what reason given? Why did Trump say "to the victor belong the spoils"? Did Hitler take Romania's oil to dissuade others from taking over Romania??

Instead of addressing the pro torture stance I mentioned, you shift to "excluding citizens", which again he can't do BEFORE he is president.  

Alll this talk of how "sad" Hitler comparisons are--as if people who in principle accept military robbery and torture hold the high moral ground--while embracing a leader who makes fun of the disabled and calls women pigs.

The company we keep indeed.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2017, 11:13 PM)Dill Wrote: The question of Trump's similarity to Hitler does not require an example of "Trump robbing a country." How would he "rob a country" BEFORE he is president?

No one compares Trump to what Hitler DID. They compare his values, statements and policy preferences to those of Hitler.  You have not effectively disputed such a comparison on the points I made.

His "take the oil" comment was a criticism of Bush and Obama for not taking the oil after conquering Iraq. How would taking it "dissuade" anyone from "taking over" (as opposed to just a warning from the US military)? And how would it not be robbery, no matter what reason given? Why did Trump say "to the victor belong the spoils"? Did Hitler take Romania's oil to dissuade others from taking over Romania??

Instead of addressing the pro torture stance I mentioned, you shift to "excluding citizens", which again he can't do BEFORE he is president.  

Alll this talk of how "sad" Hitler comparisons are--as if people who in principle accept military robbery and torture hold the high moral ground--while embracing a leader who makes fun of the disabled and calls women pigs.

The company we keep indeed.

Noted. It's as simple as this: You think comparing Trump to Hitler is justifiable and I think it is not. No nee for anymore dissertations. 

[Dill]

(01-22-2017, 11:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Noted. It's as simple as this: You think comparing Trump to Hitler is justifiable and I think it is not. No nee for anymore dissertations. 

Historically based policy analysis of Trump's statements and values=complicated.

Just listening to what is in his heart=simple.