Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[Glenstache]

At first, I thought the word 'outrageous' was being used sarcastically, but maybe not? Haven't listened/read it yet, but apparently Biden's speech last night pressed some people's buttons.

@Shane this is an excellent summary. From my view, all of the correct people are mad about this speech.

Yeah, you can definitely say, everyone who finds this speech outragious is someone who is a fascist at heart.

And don't take it lightly. At the first election I already wrote something on the line of "Trump today is like Hitler in the late 1920" with examples. (Of course many Americans told me I am stupid.)

To quote the Anti-Defamation League's article "Let’s Avoid Holocaust Analogies in the Public Square":
"ADL has long called out those who seek to draw modern-day comparisons to the Nazis - including those who attacked candidate Donald Trump in 2016 for being akin to Adolf Hitler - and yet we once again feel the need to reiterate how inappropriate and offensive these analogies are."
https://www.adl.org/blog/lets-avoid-holocaust-analogies-in-the-public-square

Victor Orban, Assad, Putin, and other authoritarians are more likely to be apt analogies to Trump's (not so secret) desires. The Fox News lovefest with Orban is a pretty solid supporting line of evidence of the desires of the Christian Nationalist right in the United States. And back on topic, it is appropriate for Biden to call out the anti-democratic elements as dangerous to our democracy. If calling that out is divisive, it just means that those elements are dangerous. It is also useful to remember that democratic systems are a tool that is used to implement the will of the populace (influence via money, corruption, etc as known modifiers). There is nothing inherent to democracy to prevent a nation from removing democracy from itself if that's what they vote for.

[Kris]

At first, I thought the word 'outrageous' was being used sarcastically, but maybe not? Haven't listened/read it yet, but apparently Biden's speech last night pressed some people's buttons.

@Shane this is an excellent summary. From my view, all of the correct people are mad about this speech.

Yeah, you can definitely say, everyone who finds this speech outragious is someone who is a fascist at heart.

And don't take it lightly. At the first election I already wrote something on the line of "Trump today is like Hitler in the late 1920" with examples. (Of course many Americans told me I am stupid.)

To quote the Anti-Defamation League's article "Let’s Avoid Holocaust Analogies in the Public Square":
"ADL has long called out those who seek to draw modern-day comparisons to the Nazis - including those who attacked candidate Donald Trump in 2016 for being akin to Adolf Hitler - and yet we once again feel the need to reiterate how inappropriate and offensive these analogies are."
https://www.adl.org/blog/lets-avoid-holocaust-analogies-in-the-public-square

I’m not sure an actual German pointing out historical parallels was exactly what the ADL had in mind…

[former player]

At first, I thought the word 'outrageous' was being used sarcastically, but maybe not? Haven't listened/read it yet, but apparently Biden's speech last night pressed some people's buttons.

@Shane this is an excellent summary. From my view, all of the correct people are mad about this speech.

Yeah, you can definitely say, everyone who finds this speech outragious is someone who is a fascist at heart.

And don't take it lightly. At the first election I already wrote something on the line of "Trump today is like Hitler in the late 1920" with examples. (Of course many Americans told me I am stupid.)

To quote the Anti-Defamation League's article "Let’s Avoid Holocaust Analogies in the Public Square":
"ADL has long called out those who seek to draw modern-day comparisons to the Nazis - including those who attacked candidate Donald Trump in 2016 for being akin to Adolf Hitler - and yet we once again feel the need to reiterate how inappropriate and offensive these analogies are."
https://www.adl.org/blog/lets-avoid-holocaust-analogies-in-the-public-square

I’m not sure an actual German pointing out historical parallels was exactly what the ADL had in mind…

Yeah, the ADL was all "the end result of the Nazi genocide was uniquely appalling, don't make comparisons", which is fair enough in its way but shouldn't stop anyone from pointing out that a movement has started out on that road (and LGTBQA+ people are at this moment being singled out by the MAGA crowd for "special treatment" with the aim of eliminating their presence from public services such as education).

[LennStar]

At first, I thought the word 'outrageous' was being used sarcastically, but maybe not? Haven't listened/read it yet, but apparently Biden's speech last night pressed some people's buttons.

@Shane this is an excellent summary. From my view, all of the correct people are mad about this speech.

Yeah, you can definitely say, everyone who finds this speech outragious is someone who is a fascist at heart.

And don't take it lightly. At the first election I already wrote something on the line of "Trump today is like Hitler in the late 1920" with examples. (Of course many Americans told me I am stupid.)

To quote the Anti-Defamation League's article "Let’s Avoid Holocaust Analogies in the Public Square":
"ADL has long called out those who seek to draw modern-day comparisons to the Nazis - including those who attacked candidate Donald Trump in 2016 for being akin to Adolf Hitler - and yet we once again feel the need to reiterate how inappropriate and offensive these analogies are."
https://www.adl.org/blog/lets-avoid-holocaust-analogies-in-the-public-square

Granted, Trump is a lot stupider than Hitler, far inferior in speeches and probably a worse painter, but this is not about the person per se, it's about the actions and circumstances. Neither Trump nor Hitler could do any big harm if nobody would follow them. And Trump has followers ready to storm the capitol even with those lacking leader skills.

There is nothing inherent to democracy to prevent a nation from removing democracy from itself if that's what they vote for.

Or you can put it like that.

Victor Orban, Assad, Putin

Actually no. Maybe Putin in the last years, but still less. Because they don't attack democracy (and big groups of other people in their country) by riling up their followers, they are "just" using an ingroup/outgroup setting and police/military power.
There is a difference between autocrats and despots and fascists. Granted it's hard to pinpoint. But for example Putin has crossed the line autocrat -> despot in the last year, less with the war itself, but more with his reaction putting down (and in prison) any protests and the lead up to this, like basically forbidden every non-Russian organisation.
But this is more a sign of weakness (despot) than of strenght and support in the populace (fascist).

[MustacheAndaHalf]

At first, I thought the word 'outrageous' was being used sarcastically, but maybe not? Haven't listened/read it yet, but apparently Biden's speech last night pressed some people's buttons.

@Shane this is an excellent summary. From my view, all of the correct people are mad about this speech.

Yeah, you can definitely say, everyone who finds this speech outragious is someone who is a fascist at heart.

And don't take it lightly. At the first election I already wrote something on the line of "Trump today is like Hitler in the late 1920" with examples. (Of course many Americans told me I am stupid.)

To quote the Anti-Defamation League's article "Let’s Avoid Holocaust Analogies in the Public Square":
"ADL has long called out those who seek to draw modern-day comparisons to the Nazis - including those who attacked candidate Donald Trump in 2016 for being akin to Adolf Hitler - and yet we once again feel the need to reiterate how inappropriate and offensive these analogies are."
https://www.adl.org/blog/lets-avoid-holocaust-analogies-in-the-public-square

Granted, Trump is a lot stupider than Hitler, far inferior in speeches and probably a worse painter, but this is not about the person per se, it's about the actions and circumstances. Neither Trump nor Hitler could do any big harm if nobody would follow them. And Trump has followers ready to storm the capitol even with those lacking leader skills.

I think your comparison of two people's intelligence and art ability is an attempt to inflame and troll.  If it's not about the person, why compare like that?

Non-democratic leaders have followers - there's nothing unique about that.  It seems like you're reaching to defend your comparison, and a better explanation is that you like to troll and inflame.

If you didn't want that, you have dozens of leaders to choose.  Stallin revised history, removing disgraced leaders from photos.  I prefer Trump's poor quality use of a permanent marker to edit a hurricane plot - easier to spot and ridicule.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

At first, I thought the word 'outrageous' was being used sarcastically, but maybe not? Haven't listened/read it yet, but apparently Biden's speech last night pressed some people's buttons.

@Shane this is an excellent summary. From my view, all of the correct people are mad about this speech.

Yeah, you can definitely say, everyone who finds this speech outragious is someone who is a fascist at heart.

And don't take it lightly. At the first election I already wrote something on the line of "Trump today is like Hitler in the late 1920" with examples. (Of course many Americans told me I am stupid.)

To quote the Anti-Defamation League's article "Let’s Avoid Holocaust Analogies in the Public Square":
"ADL has long called out those who seek to draw modern-day comparisons to the Nazis - including those who attacked candidate Donald Trump in 2016 for being akin to Adolf Hitler - and yet we once again feel the need to reiterate how inappropriate and offensive these analogies are."
https://www.adl.org/blog/lets-avoid-holocaust-analogies-in-the-public-square

I’m not sure an actual German pointing out historical parallels was exactly what the ADL had in mind…

What part of "including those who attacked candidate Donald Trump in 2016 for being akin to Adolf Hitler" is not clear to you?

[LennStar]

I think your comparison of two people's intelligence and art ability is an attempt to inflame and troll.  If it's not about the person, why compare like that?

Non-democratic leaders have followers - there's nothing unique about that.  It seems like you're reaching to defend your comparison, and a better explanation is that you like to troll and inflame.

If you didn't want that, you have dozens of leaders to choose.  Stallin revised history, removing disgraced leaders from photos.  I prefer Trump's poor quality use of a permanent marker to edit a hurricane plot - easier to spot and ridicule.

1) No, I am pointing out that from normal measurements is someone is a good leader, Trump decidedly has not, and is still leading fanatics. The painter thing is probably a German joke thing.

2) It's the not the existance of followers, it's the amount and the readiness to do bad things that is worrying.

3) I fail to see the reason why I, as a German, should have to compare to a person and history I am less knowledgeable about, and which is far less fitting.
And btw. I am not the only one pointing it out. Here another one, that was swept in my twitter feed: https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/status/1565791560259739651

With all the arguments over whether MAGA Republicans are fascists, I reread William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” to see how much the rise of Hitler and the rise of MAGA smell similar.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think your comparison of two people's intelligence and art ability is an attempt to inflame and troll.  If it's not about the person, why compare like that?

Non-democratic leaders have followers - there's nothing unique about that.  It seems like you're reaching to defend your comparison, and a better explanation is that you like to troll and inflame.

If you didn't want that, you have dozens of leaders to choose.  Stallin revised history, removing disgraced leaders from photos.  I prefer Trump's poor quality use of a permanent marker to edit a hurricane plot - easier to spot and ridicule.

1) No, I am pointing out that from normal measurements is someone is a good leader, Trump decidedly has not, and is still leading fanatics. The painter thing is probably a German joke thing.

2) It's the not the existance of followers, it's the amount and the readiness to do bad things that is worrying.

3) I fail to see the reason why I, as a German, should have to compare to a person and history I am less knowledgeable about, and which is far less fitting.
And btw. I am not the only one pointing it out. Here another one, that was swept in my twitter feed: https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/status/1565791560259739651

With all the arguments over whether MAGA Republicans are fascists, I reread William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” to see how much the rise of Hitler and the rise of MAGA smell similar.

As a German, you don't know the history of East Germany?  East Germany was founded by Joseph Stallin, who I mentioned in my prior post.

And yes, I caught the failed art student reference - that's known outside Germany.  But I pointed out it's irrelevant to a historical comparison.  Calling it a joke does not explain why you brought it up, when it wasn't relevant.

[JLee]

I think your comparison of two people's intelligence and art ability is an attempt to inflame and troll.  If it's not about the person, why compare like that?

Non-democratic leaders have followers - there's nothing unique about that.  It seems like you're reaching to defend your comparison, and a better explanation is that you like to troll and inflame.

If you didn't want that, you have dozens of leaders to choose.  Stallin revised history, removing disgraced leaders from photos.  I prefer Trump's poor quality use of a permanent marker to edit a hurricane plot - easier to spot and ridicule.

1) No, I am pointing out that from normal measurements is someone is a good leader, Trump decidedly has not, and is still leading fanatics. The painter thing is probably a German joke thing.

2) It's the not the existance of followers, it's the amount and the readiness to do bad things that is worrying.

3) I fail to see the reason why I, as a German, should have to compare to a person and history I am less knowledgeable about, and which is far less fitting.
And btw. I am not the only one pointing it out. Here another one, that was swept in my twitter feed: https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/status/1565791560259739651

With all the arguments over whether MAGA Republicans are fascists, I reread William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” to see how much the rise of Hitler and the rise of MAGA smell similar.

As a German, you don't know the history of East Germany?  East Germany was founded by Joseph Stallin, who I mentioned in my prior post.

And yes, I caught the failed art student reference - that's known outside Germany.  But I pointed out it's irrelevant to a historical comparison.  Calling it a joke does not explain why you brought it up, when it wasn't relevant.

It's relevant as a joke because it's humor that is tangent to the topic at hand. 

[former player]

I think your comparison of two people's intelligence and art ability is an attempt to inflame and troll.  If it's not about the person, why compare like that?

Non-democratic leaders have followers - there's nothing unique about that.  It seems like you're reaching to defend your comparison, and a better explanation is that you like to troll and inflame.

If you didn't want that, you have dozens of leaders to choose.  Stallin revised history, removing disgraced leaders from photos.  I prefer Trump's poor quality use of a permanent marker to edit a hurricane plot - easier to spot and ridicule.

1) No, I am pointing out that from normal measurements is someone is a good leader, Trump decidedly has not, and is still leading fanatics. The painter thing is probably a German joke thing.

2) It's the not the existance of followers, it's the amount and the readiness to do bad things that is worrying.

3) I fail to see the reason why I, as a German, should have to compare to a person and history I am less knowledgeable about, and which is far less fitting.
And btw. I am not the only one pointing it out. Here another one, that was swept in my twitter feed: https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/status/1565791560259739651

With all the arguments over whether MAGA Republicans are fascists, I reread William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” to see how much the rise of Hitler and the rise of MAGA smell similar.

As a German, you don't know the history of East Germany?  East Germany was founded by Joseph Stallin, who I mentioned in my prior post.

And yes, I caught the failed art student reference - that's known outside Germany.  But I pointed out it's irrelevant to a historical comparison.  Calling it a joke does not explain why you brought it up, when it wasn't relevant.

My understanding of this conversation is that you were suggesting that LennStar should use a comparison other than Germany in order to avoid the Hitler comparison and LennStar was saying that they should be able to use a comparison that they knew well rather than going further afield to find one they knew less well. 

I think if anyone should be able to use a Hitler comparison it is someone German, who will understand the historical parallels better than most of us.  And in any case, as I said in my last post, I don't think the reasons the ADL give for not using Hitler as a comparison apply in this case:

Yeah, the ADL was all "the end result of the Nazi genocide was uniquely appalling, don't make comparisons", which is fair enough in its way but shouldn't stop anyone from pointing out that a movement has started out on that road (and LGTBQA+ people are at this moment being singled out by the MAGA crowd for "special treatment" with the aim of eliminating their presence from public services such as education).

[Shane]

The ADL is free, at least in the US, to express any opinions they like. Apparently, the ADL thinks it's inappropriate to compare contemporary politicians to Hitler. That's nice, but it doesn't mean LennStar is required to share their opinions or give af if they're offended by his differing opinions. It just seems like a silly line of argument, "LennStar shouldn't make analogies between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler..." Because? "Well, because the ADL might not like it." Really? It seems totally valid to argue that there are more appropriate analogies to Trump and the MAGA movement than Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party in Germany in the 1930s, but trying to claim that another poster's analogy isn't valid because the ADL might be offended by it seems kinda dumb, imho.

[nereo]

We don’t need to go as far as the ADL on this issue. The forum tiles themselves give guidelines, including not using Hitler’s Nazi Germany to describe being overcharged for a service. But the question becomes how appropriate is a comparison is it in this case?

Clearly there are directly parallels, as they are both political leaders who used White Nationalism to obtain power, with some really ugly aspects. So there are echos for sure

HOWEVER (in big capital letters). You can draw a direct line between Hitler and the extermination of 11MM with the holocaust, and another 50MM through WWII. In actual deeds and policies there’s simply no comparison. Even by the measures of US Presidents, Trumps role as commander in chief wasnt terribly hawkish, as he preferred to retract from many conflicts (Afghanistan, NATO) and is remarkable for not jumping into a new large scale conflict. On the domestic front, while Trumps court picks have managed to roll back and threaten legal rights of many individuals (LGBTQ, migrants, women) it remains a world of difference between the forced sterilization and imprisonment of many groups under the Nazi regime.

The argument seems to be:IF Trump gets re-elected, THEN it will be just like Hitler. it will be ugly for many for sure, but his track record and even his rhetoric don’t hold a candle to the evilness of Adolf Hitler.

[JLee]

We don’t need to go as far as the ADL on this issue. The forum tiles themselves give guidelines, including not using Hitler’s Nazi Germany to describe being overcharged for a service. But the question becomes how appropriate is a comparison is it in this case?

Clearly there are directly parallels, as they are both political leaders who used White Nationalism to obtain power, with some really ugly aspects. So there are echos for sure

HOWEVER (in big capital letters). You can draw a direct line between Hitler and the extermination of 11MM with the holocaust, and another 50MM through WWII. In actual deeds and policies there’s simply no comparison. Even by the measures of US Presidents, Trumps role as commander in chief wasnt terribly hawkish, as he preferred to retract from many conflicts (Afghanistan, NATO) and is remarkable for not jumping into a new large scale conflict. On the domestic front, while Trumps court picks have managed to roll back and threaten legal rights of many individuals (LGBTQ, migrants, women) it remains a world of difference between the forced sterilization and imprisonment of many groups under the Nazi regime.

The argument seems to be:IF Trump gets re-elected, THEN it will be just like Hitler. it will be ugly for many for sure, but his track record and even his rhetoric don’t hold a candle to the evilness of Adolf Hitler.

I don't think it's as simple as that.  There are certainly parallels between both, which can lead people to envisioning what could happen down the road.  2016 me would've never guessed that there would be a literal attempt to violently overthrow democracy.  I would've never guessed that Roe v Wade would actually get overturned.

I've read people talk about wanting to machine-gun immigrants as they cross the border - even if Trump isn't saying it directly, his dog whistle is luring people from way far out on the edge of extremism.  If the extremists in the GOP manage to wrangle their way into controlling elections, who's to say what's next? "They're not like Hitler, they just want to put all the gays in prison instead of executing them" may be technically correct but it entirely misses the point of discussing similitaries.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/an-american-fuhrer-nazi-analogies-and-the-struggle-to-explain-donald-trump/25CBE639F23D2D80870EA4D3F1E6D566

[former player]

We don’t need to go as far as the ADL on this issue. The forum tiles themselves give guidelines, including not using Hitler’s Nazi Germany to describe being overcharged for a service. But the question becomes how appropriate is a comparison is it in this case?

Clearly there are directly parallels, as they are both political leaders who used White Nationalism to obtain power, with some really ugly aspects. So there are echos for sure

HOWEVER (in big capital letters). You can draw a direct line between Hitler and the extermination of 11MM with the holocaust, and another 50MM through WWII. In actual deeds and policies there’s simply no comparison. Even by the measures of US Presidents, Trumps role as commander in chief wasnt terribly hawkish, as he preferred to retract from many conflicts (Afghanistan, NATO) and is remarkable for not jumping into a new large scale conflict. On the domestic front, while Trumps court picks have managed to roll back and threaten legal rights of many individuals (LGBTQ, migrants, women) it remains a world of difference between the forced sterilization and imprisonment of many groups under the Nazi regime.

The argument seems to be:IF Trump gets re-elected, THEN it will be just like Hitler. it will be ugly for many for sure, but his track record and even his rhetoric don’t hold a candle to the evilness of Adolf Hitler.

All true, but:

1.  Biden's speech (which is what started this discussion) was about the Maga crowd in general not just Trump, so saying Trump alone isn't that bad misses a lot of the point.

2.  Hitler's first coup attempt was in 1923.  So the apt Trump/Hitler comparison is to 1920s and early 1930s Hitler and the direction of travel at that point.

3.  I don't think anyone in the USA has much call to get self-righteous about forced sterilisation policies.  (Or its current opposite, forced birth policies, for that matter.)

[LennStar]

The argument seems to be:IF Trump gets re-elected, THEN it will be just like Hitler. it will be ugly for many for sure, but his track record and even his rhetoric don’t hold a candle to the evilness of Adolf Hitler.

Nobody said it will be as bad as under Hitler. How about it gets only as bad as Putin?

Not many people in 1932 expected Hitler to be the beginning of a new World War. And why did nobody stop him? As Winston Churchill said: "There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action" than World War II.

The point is: You don't know where it will end. Nobody knows where the road will lead to, but at the moment you are definitely going into a very wrong direction.

Also, I think I said that before, this is less about a certain person than about the general drift of a large part of people. If Hitler was killed in WWI maybe WWII would not have happened. But I think it's more likely someone else would have stood in place. Mabye Goebbels?

[cliffhanger]

The argument seems to be:IF Trump gets re-elected, THEN it will be just like Hitler. it will be ugly for many for sure, but his track record and even his rhetoric don’t hold a candle to the evilness of Adolf Hitler.

Nobody said it will be as bad as under Hitler. How about it gets only as bad as Putin?

....

LOL you think six years of nastiness from people on this forum can hide from a 10 second google search?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/trump-outrage-of-the-day/msg2701684/#msg2701684

And so the Republic ends... with thunderous applause.
That sentence was the only redeeming thing for those Star Wars movies.

People laughed me off when I told them at Trumps election that he is bad because he behaves like a dictator (I probably even said Hitler), just with less eloquence.
He is an idiot, but he knows how power works and is a psychopath, ready to use this to his fullest success.

And that is all there is to him, but precisely because of this all that silencing happens. Scientist that cannot speak openly. Newspapers under attack fur reporting the truth. Breach of contracts. The things you could call class warfare (like his tax reform) - that he even manages to sell to the losers as a victory for them.
 
When students here in Germany learn about the Nazis in school, there is always one question nobody can really answer: How could this happen?

This is how.

[bacchi]

LOL you think six years of nastiness from people on this forum can hide from a 10 second google search?

Criticizing a politician is "nastiness?"

[LennStar]

The argument seems to be:IF Trump gets re-elected, THEN it will be just like Hitler. it will be ugly for many for sure, but his track record and even his rhetoric don’t hold a candle to the evilness of Adolf Hitler.

Nobody said it will be as bad as under Hitler. How about it gets only as bad as Putin?

....

LOL you think six years of nastiness from people on this forum can hide from a 10 second google search?
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/trump-outrage-of-the-day/msg2701684/#msg2701684

One of us two has problems with the conceptual difference of a deterministic future and a possibility.
Nobody said it WILL, but it is possible if not stopped at the right time, and like climate change, we are at the last possible point to stop it (even if that "point" may be a decade of time).

And Trump would have gotten a lot less nasty reviews if he had done a lot less nasty things. Sorry, if you lie, you will be called a liar. If you are an idiot, you will be called an idiot.
I don't bother about snowflakes melting the moment a ray of the light of truth shines on them.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think your comparison of two people's intelligence and art ability is an attempt to inflame and troll.  If it's not about the person, why compare like that?

Non-democratic leaders have followers - there's nothing unique about that.  It seems like you're reaching to defend your comparison, and a better explanation is that you like to troll and inflame.

If you didn't want that, you have dozens of leaders to choose.  Stallin revised history, removing disgraced leaders from photos.  I prefer Trump's poor quality use of a permanent marker to edit a hurricane plot - easier to spot and ridicule.

1) No, I am pointing out that from normal measurements is someone is a good leader, Trump decidedly has not, and is still leading fanatics. The painter thing is probably a German joke thing.

2) It's the not the existance of followers, it's the amount and the readiness to do bad things that is worrying.

3) I fail to see the reason why I, as a German, should have to compare to a person and history I am less knowledgeable about, and which is far less fitting.
And btw. I am not the only one pointing it out. Here another one, that was swept in my twitter feed: https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/status/1565791560259739651

With all the arguments over whether MAGA Republicans are fascists, I reread William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” to see how much the rise of Hitler and the rise of MAGA smell similar.

As a German, you don't know the history of East Germany?  East Germany was founded by Joseph Stallin, who I mentioned in my prior post.

And yes, I caught the failed art student reference - that's known outside Germany.  But I pointed out it's irrelevant to a historical comparison.  Calling it a joke does not explain why you brought it up, when it wasn't relevant.

My understanding of this conversation is that you were suggesting that LennStar should use a comparison other than Germany in order to avoid the Hitler comparison and LennStar was saying that they should be able to use a comparison that they knew well rather than going further afield to find one they knew less well. 

I think if anyone should be able to use a Hitler comparison it is someone German, who will understand the historical parallels better than most of us.  And in any case, as I said in my last post, I don't think the reasons the ADL give for not using Hitler as a comparison apply in this case:

When I mention East Germany, you think my point is a comparison "other than Germany"?

Do you understand what "if anyone should" means?  If Germans can't make comparisons to Hitler, Jewish people should not be allowed to, either?

There's a polical party called "Alternative for Germany" that wants to kick immigrants out of Germany.  They received 1/10th of the vote last election, I believe, but they are still a far-right political group.  In your view, are they are the best qualified to talk about Germany's past?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

And Trump would have gotten a lot less nasty reviews if he had done a lot less nasty things. Sorry, if you lie, you will be called a liar. If you are an idiot, you will be called an idiot.

If only the media followed that principle, but they always leave out context.  Former President Trump got tons of free advertising, none of which had context about him lying a lot more than other politicians.  They simply quoted him,  got more views, cashed in on more advertising dollars ... and did it again.  They're addicted to Trump - they'll make the same mistakes next time.  I wish the press provided context, and called people liars when they earned it.

Look at how Putin is treated by the media.  Is Russia ever called a frequent liar?  The media wants conflict, so they just quote two sides.  Providing context used to be their job, but those days have been replaced with a focus on advertising dollars.  So just as you don't see Russia or Putin called a frequent liar now, you won't see Trump called an idiot or liar when he runs again.  I wish the media provided context, and called people liars who deserve it - but they get paid to quote both sides and create conflict instead.

[PDXTabs]

According to India Times "foreign heads of state and other royal dignitaries arriving for the Queen's funeral have been directed to travel in groups by bus to reach Westminster Abbey. The newly issued government guidance directs the use of buses instead of private cars." But of course Biden showed up in a limousine.

[PDXTabs]

According to India Times "foreign heads of state and other royal dignitaries arriving for the Queen's funeral have been directed to travel in groups by bus to reach Westminster Abbey. The newly issued government guidance directs the use of buses instead of private cars." But of course Biden showed up in a limousine.

MSNBC: Biden Gets Stuck in Traffic on the Way to Queen Elizabeth's Funeral After Refusing to Take a Bus

[GuitarStv]

According to India Times "foreign heads of state and other royal dignitaries arriving for the Queen's funeral have been directed to travel in groups by bus to reach Westminster Abbey. The newly issued government guidance directs the use of buses instead of private cars." But of course Biden showed up in a limousine.

MSNBC: Biden Gets Stuck in Traffic on the Way to Queen Elizabeth's Funeral After Refusing to Take a Bus

I was wondering if there were legit security reasons to not take the bus.  A private bulletproof limo is going to be better to defend than a random bus full of weirdos.  But it turns out that the bus would have carried other world leaders  . . . so I have to believe that it has sufficient security.

[PDXTabs]

According to India Times "foreign heads of state and other royal dignitaries arriving for the Queen's funeral have been directed to travel in groups by bus to reach Westminster Abbey. The newly issued government guidance directs the use of buses instead of private cars." But of course Biden showed up in a limousine.

MSNBC: Biden Gets Stuck in Traffic on the Way to Queen Elizabeth's Funeral After Refusing to Take a Bus

I was wondering if there were legit security reasons to not take the bus.  A private bulletproof limo is going to be better to defend than a random bus full of weirdos.  But it turns out that the bus would have carried other world leaders  . . . so I have to believe that it has sufficient security.

I'm not a physical world security expert, but if they cleared traffic for the bus but not the limo I'm not even sure that it is more secure.

[FIPurpose]

Or he had a couple phone calls he had to make on the way there and didn't have the time to spend socializing on a bus with a random dignitary?

[PDXTabs]

Or he had a couple phone calls he had to make on the way there and didn't have the time to spend socializing on a bus with a random dignitary?

So Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier can take a bus but Biden can't? What a fucking joke of a president.

[FIPurpose]

Or he had a couple phone calls he had to make on the way there and didn't have the time to spend socializing on a bus with a random dignitary?

So Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier can take a bus but Biden can't? What a fucking joke of a president.

Not ragging on those leaders or saying that they couldn't have other things to do with their time, but Biden does lead a country with a roughly 3x larger economy than Canada, France, and Germany combined.

It's also a weakness of US government, that Biden is leading an entire branch of government himself. Parliamentary systems are not nearly as dependent on a single person.

[PDXTabs]

Or he had a couple phone calls he had to make on the way there and didn't have the time to spend socializing on a bus with a random dignitary?

So Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier can take a bus but Biden can't? What a fucking joke of a president.

Not ragging on those leaders or saying that they couldn't have other things to do with their time, but Biden does lead a country with a roughly 3x larger economy than Canada, France, and Germany combined.

It's also a weakness of US government, that Biden is leading an entire branch of government himself. Parliamentary systems are not nearly as dependent on a single person.

I'll keep that in mind when I totally don't vote for him because I'm a liberal that cares about climate change, turning Saudi Arabia into a pariah state, and The War on Cars.

[GuitarStv]

I'll keep that in mind when I totally don't vote for him because I'm a liberal that cares about climate change, turning Saudi Arabia into a pariah state, and The War on Cars.

Biden's far from perfect . . . but he's probably the most environmentally focused politician that the US will tolerate in power at the moment.

In the last election you had pretty limited options at the poll booth:
- opt out of voting
- vote for a zero percent chance of winning third party
- vote for the party that is actively focused on destroying the environment
- vote for Biden

So which of the first three did you end up going for, and why did you think it would make the environment better?

[PDXTabs]

I'll keep that in mind when I totally don't vote for him because I'm a liberal that cares about climate change, turning Saudi Arabia into a pariah state, and The War on Cars.

Biden's far from perfect . . . but he's probably the most environmentally focused politician that the US will tolerate in power at the moment.

In the last election you had pretty limited options at the poll booth:
- opt out of voting
- vote for a zero percent chance of winning third party
- vote for the party that is actively focused on destroying the environment
- vote for Biden

So which of the first three did you end up going for, and why did you think it would make the environment better?

Well, in the last election I voted for Biden because I believed his lies (I'm very gullible). In the next election I'll probably vote third party (I'm happy to vote for Biden if he somehow fulfills his campaign promises on climate and Saudi Arabia before the election). As to the futility of voting third party, I'll just quote ChpBstrd:

People voting third party are sending a stronger signal than the people voting D or R. You know what would make the Republican party less authoritarian? Losing a significant number of votes to the Libertarians, that's what. You know what would make the Democrats prioritize climate change? Losing a significant number of votes to the Greens, that's what. The big political parties are spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars per vote, especially in swing states. So when they see anyone vote third party despite all that spending, it sends a signal. I would argue that 100 third-party votes matter to policy more than 1,000 mainstream party votes.

[GuitarStv]

I'll keep that in mind when I totally don't vote for him because I'm a liberal that cares about climate change, turning Saudi Arabia into a pariah state, and The War on Cars.

Biden's far from perfect . . . but he's probably the most environmentally focused politician that the US will tolerate in power at the moment.

In the last election you had pretty limited options at the poll booth:
- opt out of voting
- vote for a zero percent chance of winning third party
- vote for the party that is actively focused on destroying the environment
- vote for Biden

So which of the first three did you end up going for, and why did you think it would make the environment better?

Well, in the last election I voted for Biden because I believed his lies (I'm very gullible). In the next election I'll probably vote third party (I'm happy to vote for Biden if he somehow fulfills his campaign promises on climate and Saudi Arabia before the election). As to the futility of voting third party, I'll just quote ChpBstrd:

People voting third party are sending a stronger signal than the people voting D or R. You know what would make the Republican party less authoritarian? Losing a significant number of votes to the Libertarians, that's what. You know what would make the Democrats prioritize climate change? Losing a significant number of votes to the Greens, that's what. The big political parties are spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars per vote, especially in swing states. So when they see anyone vote third party despite all that spending, it sends a signal. I would argue that 100 third-party votes matter to policy more than 1,000 mainstream party votes.

FWIW, here in Canada I throw away my vote pretty regularly on the green party.

However, my voting has often been strategic in the past.  When there's a close race between Liberals and Conservatives I'll vote Liberal because they tend to be less bad.  In that case, throwing away my vote on the green party would actually harm my goal by potentially helping the most damaging party get into power.

[FIPurpose]

I'll keep that in mind when I totally don't vote for him because I'm a liberal that cares about climate change, turning Saudi Arabia into a pariah state, and The War on Cars.

Biden's far from perfect . . . but he's probably the most environmentally focused politician that the US will tolerate in power at the moment.

In the last election you had pretty limited options at the poll booth:
- opt out of voting
- vote for a zero percent chance of winning third party
- vote for the party that is actively focused on destroying the environment
- vote for Biden

So which of the first three did you end up going for, and why did you think it would make the environment better?

Well, in the last election I voted for Biden because I believed his lies (I'm very gullible). In the next election I'll probably vote third party (I'm happy to vote for Biden if he somehow fulfills his campaign promises on climate and Saudi Arabia before the election). As to the futility of voting third party, I'll just quote ChpBstrd:

People voting third party are sending a stronger signal than the people voting D or R. You know what would make the Republican party less authoritarian? Losing a significant number of votes to the Libertarians, that's what. You know what would make the Democrats prioritize climate change? Losing a significant number of votes to the Greens, that's what. The big political parties are spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars per vote, especially in swing states. So when they see anyone vote third party despite all that spending, it sends a signal. I would argue that 100 third-party votes matter to policy more than 1,000 mainstream party votes.

FWIW, here in Canada I throw away my vote pretty regularly on the green party.

However, my voting has often been strategic in the past.  When there's a close race between Liberals and Conservatives I'll vote Liberal because they tend to be less bad.  In that case, throwing away my vote on the green party would actually harm my goal by potentially helping the most damaging party get into power.

Unless you live in one of about 10 states, your vote for president never matters. Third party away, it's signaling nothing to those in power.

[PDXTabs]

Unless you live in one of about 10 states, your vote for president never matters. Third party away, it's signaling nothing to those in power.

The Democratic party operatives I know in Washington state tell me that isn't necessarily true, if "those in power" include the DNC. But what they are very insistent on is that if I contributed a lot of money in 2016 and 2018 and 2020 but then I suddenly stop giving money to candidates with a D next to their name that they take notice (at least in aggregate).

[FIPurpose]

Unless you live in one of about 10 states, your vote for president never matters. Third party away, it's signaling nothing to those in power.

The Democratic party operatives I know in Washington state tell me that isn't necessarily true, if "those in power" include the DNC. But what they are very insistent on is that if I contributed a lot of money in 2016 and 2018 and 2020 but then I suddenly stop giving money to candidates with a D next to their name that they take notice (at least in aggregate).

Hah, that they would notice. yep.

[talltexan]

I'll keep that in mind when I totally don't vote for him because I'm a liberal that cares about climate change, turning Saudi Arabia into a pariah state, and The War on Cars.

Biden's far from perfect . . . but he's probably the most environmentally focused politician that the US will tolerate in power at the moment.

In the last election you had pretty limited options at the poll booth:
- opt out of voting
- vote for a zero percent chance of winning third party
- vote for the party that is actively focused on destroying the environment
- vote for Biden

So which of the first three did you end up going for, and why did you think it would make the environment better?

Well, in the last election I voted for Biden because I believed his lies (I'm very gullible). In the next election I'll probably vote third party (I'm happy to vote for Biden if he somehow fulfills his campaign promises on climate and Saudi Arabia before the election). As to the futility of voting third party, I'll just quote ChpBstrd:

People voting third party are sending a stronger signal than the people voting D or R. You know what would make the Republican party less authoritarian? Losing a significant number of votes to the Libertarians, that's what. You know what would make the Democrats prioritize climate change? Losing a significant number of votes to the Greens, that's what. The big political parties are spending hundreds, even thousands of dollars per vote, especially in swing states. So when they see anyone vote third party despite all that spending, it sends a signal. I would argue that 100 third-party votes matter to policy more than 1,000 mainstream party votes.

Shall we look at the evidence? In 2017, Trump took office after third parties rolled up a higher percentage of the vote than in any election since 1992. Did he govern as a centrist, or did he govern from the far right?

(you can also have similar conversations about the first two years of Clinton's and George W. Bush's time as President)

[PDXTabs]

Shall we look at the evidence? In 2017, Trump took office after third parties rolled up a higher percentage of the vote than in any election since 1992. Did he govern as a centrist, or did he govern from the far right?

Do you have a good source for that? I'm curious to look more at it.

(you can also have similar conversations about the first two years of Clinton's and George W. Bush's time as President)

Please elaborate.

[PDXTabs]

Unless you live in one of about 10 states, your vote for president never matters. Third party away, it's signaling nothing to those in power.

The Democratic party operatives I know in Washington state tell me that isn't necessarily true, if "those in power" include the DNC. But what they are very insistent on is that if I contributed a lot of money in 2016 and 2018 and 2020 but then I suddenly stop giving money to candidates with a D next to their name that they take notice (at least in aggregate).

Hah, that they would notice. yep.

So, hypothetically speaking, using your logic both of us can stop donating to Democratic candidates and voting for Democrats and no one at the DNC will notice?

[talltexan]

Regarding Trump, I have in mind the following actions:

• Dramatic Reduction of immigration/asylum programs
• Appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to SCOTUS
• Tax Cut/Jobs Act
• Suspension of Clean Power Plan
• Renegotiation of NAFTA as USMCA
• Suspension of Census count and efforts to include "citizenship" question
• Leaving the Iran Nuclear Deal
• Replacement of Yellen with Powell as FRB Chair
• Criminal Justice Reform

I've tried to sort them such that the higher in the list, the more appealing to hardcore conservatives it would seem. Going into more detail would seem like a serious detour from the topic of this thread.

[PDXTabs]

Regarding Trump, I have in mind the following actions:

• Dramatic Reduction of immigration/asylum programs
• Appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to SCOTUS
• Tax Cut/Jobs Act
• Suspension of Clean Power Plan
• Renegotiation of NAFTA as USMCA
• Suspension of Census count and efforts to include "citizenship" question
• Leaving the Iran Nuclear Deal
• Replacement of Yellen with Powell as FRB Chair
• Criminal Justice Reform

I've tried to sort them such that the higher in the list, the more appealing to hardcore conservatives it would seem. Going into more detail would seem like a serious detour from the topic of this thread.

Sorry, I was asking about data round the claim that "In 2017, Trump took office after third parties rolled up a higher percentage of the vote than in any election since 1992."

[FIPurpose]

Unless you live in one of about 10 states, your vote for president never matters. Third party away, it's signaling nothing to those in power.

The Democratic party operatives I know in Washington state tell me that isn't necessarily true, if "those in power" include the DNC. But what they are very insistent on is that if I contributed a lot of money in 2016 and 2018 and 2020 but then I suddenly stop giving money to candidates with a D next to their name that they take notice (at least in aggregate).

Hah, that they would notice. yep.

So, hypothetically speaking, using your logic both of us can stop donating to Democratic candidates and voting for Democrats and no one at the DNC will notice?

Sorry if that second message came across sarcastic. I actually was completely serious.

Your donations are heavily tracked and they probably also have some amount of data to show donations vs voter enthusiasm vs voter turnout.

If you vote third party however, your vote is only ever lost in the giant wave of general statistics. If there are 1k people who switch to voting third party, there's really no way to know the difference between normal variances and certain groups switching votes. The Dems won't know who you voted for, but they will know how you donate.

Biden could be pressured into more climate action if congress actually passed a bill to do more. He would sign it. That's all I need out of a president. Someone who won't veto it. We simply can't make actionable change without a better congress.

[PDXTabs]

Biden could be pressured into more climate action if congress actually passed a bill to do more. He would sign it. That's all I need out of a president. Someone who won't veto it. We simply can't make actionable change without a better congress.

I think that's where we differ. Biden had some political capital and he spent it on the bills that he has pushed through congress, especially the first bill that he pushed through congress. This is what Biden thought was the most important thing that he could spend his political capital on: https://khn.org/morning-breakout/bidens-first-big-legislative-win-white-house-touts-relief-bill/

PS - as per the limousine my Belgian War on Cars internet friend writes "He’s the president of the United States, figures he thinks he’s above the laws. What a douchebag."

[talltexan]

Do you assess the Inflation Reduction Act as having no impact on climate?

[PDXTabs]

Do you assess the Inflation Reduction Act as having no impact on climate?

I'm highly suspicious of the combination of the infrastructure package (which was basically a roads building package) combined with the unprecedented number of new oil leases in the IRA being enough to meet our agreements in the Paris accords. Also, where is that high speed rail that Obama promised me?

[sixwings]

Still a lot better than the nothing that got done under Trump, and the very limited actions obama took with a conservative congress.

[PDXTabs]

Still a lot better than the nothing that got done under Trump, and the very limited actions obama took with a conservative congress.

Is it? Is more road building and oil leases than George W Bush or Donald J Trump suddenly a win for the left? When did the left get so soft?

[GuitarStv]

Still a lot better than the nothing that got done under Trump, and the very limited actions obama took with a conservative congress.

Is it? Is more road building and oil leases than George W Bush or Donald J Trump suddenly a win for the left? When did the left get so soft?

So an imperfect solution is the same as no solution at all in your eyes?

[PDXTabs]

Still a lot better than the nothing that got done under Trump, and the very limited actions obama took with a conservative congress.

Is it? Is more road building and oil leases than George W Bush or Donald J Trump suddenly a win for the left? When did the left get so soft?

So an imperfect solution is the same as no solution at all in your eyes?

To the extent that we either meet or don't meet the Paris accord target we either pass or fail. Right? Like in college? Pass, or fail?

But more importantly, the IRA reversed a court order to stop offshore drilling. The left won a stop to new offshore leases and then Biden signed a bill to start it back up again. Is that a "solution?" Or is that the opposite of a solution? https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/28/democrats-climate-energy-legislation-00048393

I'm also waiting for some sort of independent analysis to prove or disprove the claim that the largest ever issuance of drilling permits is somehow good for climate change or if Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, was correct when he called the bill a "climate suicide pact."

[sixwings]

Yep, the economy relies on oil right now and passing legislation requires states very reliant on oil to get something to vote for it. Oil will continue to get pumped as we transition to a greener economy. The IRA is the first step in that direction and is more than anyone else has done in the USA. This stuff doesn't happen over night. This is a pretty big step in moving towards a much greener economy, with a decade or more of steps, it's not that libs are soft, it's just most have a more pragmatic approach and understand that it's not going to all happen overnight in one bill.

[PDXTabs]

Yep, the economy relies on oil right now and passing legislation requires states very reliant on oil to get something to vote for it. Oil will continue to get pumped as we transition to a greener economy. The IRA is the first step in that direction and is more than anyone else has done in the USA. This stuff doesn't happen over night. This is a pretty big step in moving towards a much greener economy, with a decade or more of steps, it's not that libs are soft, it's just most have a more pragmatic approach and understand that it's not going to all happen overnight in one bill.

That seems like some partisan self congratulation to me. If Trump passed this legislation the Democrats would decry it as not enough. But since Biden signed it it must be good.

[sixwings]

Yep, the economy relies on oil right now and passing legislation requires states very reliant on oil to get something to vote for it. Oil will continue to get pumped as we transition to a greener economy. The IRA is the first step in that direction and is more than anyone else has done in the USA. This stuff doesn't happen over night. This is a pretty big step in moving towards a much greener economy, with a decade or more of steps, it's not that libs are soft, it's just most have a more pragmatic approach and understand that it's not going to all happen overnight in one bill.

That seems like some partisan self congratulation to me. If Trump passed this legislation the Democrats would decry it as not enough. But since Biden signed it it must be good.

I think it's fair to say it's good given where congress and the country is at right now as a first step but it's not enough to completely transition to a green economy or stop climate change. Saying it's a first step is implying that it's not enough by itself.

I guess in some alternative universe If Trump had passed it i would be saying the same thing, but Trump didn't even try and denies climate change. I don't care for these silly hypotheticals about "if Trump had done this you would think it sucks" garbage. Trump didn't and was never going to so it's irrelevant.