2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part VI

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
As much as Trump is disliked, Hillary has some hefty negatives herself when it comes to Honesty.

The only reason I would like to see a presidential race between HRC and Trump is to see whether the Conservatives have the audacity to attack Clinton on her honesty (which does seem to have been the strategy for while now) while their own candidate couldn't even find the words 'honesty' and 'facts' on an online dictionary.
 
Wish those on the left could criticise Trump without comparing him to Hitler ffs.

See, in most of the cases I agree with you. The comparisons of Bush from the left or Obama from the right to Hitler were just plain silly.

But Trump's game plan is absolutely taking a page from early 30s Germany.

Now do I think Trump will start rounding up the Muslims and gays and throw them into camps? Of course not... but the rhetoric is frightening none the less.
 
Let's all pretend like Trump had no idea that having all of his supporters raise their arms in pledge to him would look eerily similar to a nazi salute.

Of course he knew what he was doing. His whole game is media manipulation. That's why he's spent next to nothing on the first third of the states. Media outlets comped him the advertising money.

If you are bothered by people's comparisons between Trump and Adolf Hitler, you're missing the fact that he's doing it on purpose. He's been training for years with this. It's by no means a coincidence.
 
What bothers me is the insinuation that the present-day US is comparable to Weimar Germany in any meaningful way and consequently that Hitler-esque tactics, whatever that means, would have any efficacy here. We're not coming off a humiliating, debilitating defeat in a world war. We don't have hyperinflation or massive unemployment. We haven't experienced failed coups and we don't have a government structure that allows for something like the Enabling Act. Those kinds of comparisons read like the worst kind of History Channel bullshit.
 
Story is that Trump bribed Carson for his endorsement by making him believe he had a shot at VP.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
This is what I thought happened to Christie.

My guess is he will tell many people this. Remember, he has never spoken a word that isn't tailor made to manipulate the person or group he is speaking with. Not one word of authenticity has ever passed his lips.
 
My guess is he will tell many people this. Remember, he has never spoken a word that isn't tailor made to manipulate the person or group he is speaking with. Not one word of authenticity has ever passed his lips.

I don't agree with this. The TRUMP! response to Ted Cruz's "NY values" comment a few weeks back was, at least in my mind, very authentic and surprisingly genuine.

Also the "we won't let people die in the streets" comment was also a bit human-ish of him.

Speaking of Ted Cruz:

BREAKING: A Ted Cruz SEX SCANDAL Appears To Be Looming?

Probably nothing to it, of course, however it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Or, as i would normally say, Fuck Ted Cruz (though not literally):)sexywink:)
 
While there are few Republicans I wouldn't wish a good sex scandal on, the thought of Cruz in one is both delicious (that smarmy family man schtick, the openly anti-gay positions) and also visually repulsive.
 
Yeah, anytime a politician spouts off about "traditional family values" or "traditional marriage", or mocks or insults anything LGBT-related, I just automatically assume now that that means there's a high likelihood of them being involved in some sex scandal of their own. It's practically routine at this point.

But honestly, if this is true, you would think, in this era of social media and 24 hour news being what it is, that these politicians would learn, at the very least, how to cover this stuff better (or, preferably, learn not to do it at all in the first place, but...).
 
There is probably nothing to it honestly, but i could care less. Keep talking about your moral superiority and sooner or later someone will make this type of accusation about you.
 
See, in most of the cases I agree with you. The comparisons of Bush from the left or Obama from the right to Hitler were just plain silly.

But Trump's game plan is absolutely taking a page from early 30s Germany.

Now do I think Trump will start rounding up the Muslims and gays and throw them into camps? Of course not... but the rhetoric is frightening none the less.



Thank you. Seems anything even vaguely authoritarian has to draw immediate comparisons to Hitler - what a goddamn cliche.



Let's all pretend like Trump had no idea that having all of his supporters raise their arms in pledge to him would look eerily similar to a nazi salute.

Of course he knew what he was doing. His whole game is media manipulation. That's why he's spent next to nothing on the first third of the states. Media outlets comped him the advertising money.

If you are bothered by people's comparisons between Trump and Adolf Hitler, you're missing the fact that he's doing it on purpose. He's been training for years with this. It's by no means a coincidence.



I don't think you can necessarily draw a straight line from Trump to Hitler by any means. I think a fairer comparison is to say that this election is similar to the 1933 campaign the Nazis won. There are a lot more similarities than "Trump is fascist" (he's not). This is a pretty good analysis:

Why we have to talk about Hitler when we discuss Trump and Sanders: Don Pittis - Business - CBC News


I'm happy to admit there are some similarities, and also willing to admit that he's doing shit like the salute on purpose to stir people up because he's just such a powerful media manipulator, but they're completely superficial, as iYup points out in his later post.

We all know about Godwin's Law. It doesn't just apply to 4chan discussions. Trump is an arsehole, but until he systematically kills six million Muslims then put the lazy, haphazard comparisons to bed. It's reactionary and immediately assures your argument invalid. There are 17 million things to criticise Trump for. Pick one of them, not just call him Hitler cos he's an utter shithead.
 
I don't think anyone is saying he's going to murder 6 million Muslims. But I think the point of comparing him to Hitler is to say "look at all of these things you're doing and appreciating about him -- these are the same characteristics that Adolf Hitler exhibited when he rose to power, and he's using them intentionally."

It's suggestive that the voters are being duped and deceived. Because they are. It's suggestive that Trump could destroy the world balance of peace as did Hitler. Because he can. Nobody is comparing Trump to the holocaust, and that's not the *only* bad thing Adolf Hitler did or is known for.
 
And Hitler isn't the only historical figure ever to have used scapegoating as a rallying point or to have initiated international conflict. Hence the superficiality.
 
And Hitler isn't the only historical figure ever to have used scapegoating as a rallying point or to have initiated international conflict. Hence the superficiality.


Okay? But when you make crowds of supporters salute in an eerily nazi-like fashion, support registry of a religious minority, have a white supremacist undertone, and your ex wife makes claims that you kept Mein Kampf by your bedside, and when Adolph Hitler manages to be the most historically well known historical figure to do these things, why is the specific comparison not reasonable?

If you wanted to make a comparison, should you use someone else? Sure, he's like Mussolini, too. Happy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom