Trump Rallies & Interviews Catch-All | Trump - “just stop talking about that”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 91K
  • Politics 
HeelingAg said:
This has always been an American stance. There were large political and social lobbies for non-intervention in WW2 and even full on support of Nazism. I mean, literal American Nazis filled Madison Square Garden, with heils, arm patches, and all. Americans aren’t any better than or above any ideology.
Click to expand...
In fairness, the Nazis of the 1930s didn’t have the same rep of the Nazis of today. It was more aligned with a strain of American political thought at the time.

Supporting Nazis today, in 2024, is a different thing.
 
Last edited:
Paine said:
Just want to say I appreciate you and people like you who are willing to listen and learn rather than rejecting something that goes against what you were taught.

I think studying history changed the trajectory of my life. I can’t count how many times I learned something at Carolina about American history that flabbergasted me. There’s a reason the right doesn’t want Americans to learn about this stuff.
Click to expand...
Shoot, man, the gratitude is all mine for people like you and others in this community (and beyond) who are willing and patient "teachers"- I can sincerely say I have learned more in my years on this board than I probably ever learned in school.
 
CFordUNC said:
Yep. It's getting so much harder to give people the benefit of the doubt anymore, as there's just really any doubt left about who and what Trump and Trump is/are. I had a family member just this morning post on Facebook about how Trump was right about Hitler/the Nazis in that "they did a lot of bad things that they are remembered for but all Trump just meant that they did a lot of good things for the economy and for the German people and that even people who bad things can also do good things." Just completely and utterly an irredeemably awful point of view, and it is one that this person would have never, ever had if it had been literally any other politician or any other person saying it.
Click to expand...
Not only is it awful, it's completely and ridiculously false. There's a reason why Germany has outlawed the Nazi party ever since 1945, and it ain't only because of concerns about the Holocaust. Hitler destroyed Germany.
 
superrific said:
Not only is it awful, it's completely and ridiculously false. There's a reason why Germany has outlawed the Nazi party ever since 1945, and it ain't only because of concerns about the Holocaust. Hitler destroyed Germany.
Click to expand...
Totally. Needless to say, I was floored when I read it.
 
Calheel said:
[OP was edited. I won't republish the original]
Click to expand...
1. You should delete this before it's used against you.
2. It was never a defensible political position. Hitler and the Nazis were never, ever shy about who they were. If you want to say this about fascism more generally, maybe you'd be closer to the mark. I would still disagree, but maybe you're in the realm of plausibility. But not about the Nazis. There was never anything defensible about them.
 
Last edited:
Calheel said:
In fairness, the Nazis of the 1930s didn’t have the same rep of the Nazis of today. It was more aligned with a strain of American political thought at the time.

Supporting Nazis today, in 2024, is a different thing. [replaced with edited version of OP]
Click to expand...

The Nazi rally in MSG took place in February 1939. Years after the Reichstag Fire, the Night of the Long Knives, and Hitler making himself dictator. Three months after Kristallnacht. Hard to make excuses for anyone supporting the Nazis in February 1939 (which, to be clear, were a small minority of Americans).
 
Last edited:
rodoheel said:
The Nazi rally in MSG took place in February 1939. Years after the Reichstag Fire, the Night of the Long Knives, and Hitler making himself dictator. Three months after Kristallnacht. Hard to make excuses for anyone supporting the Nazis in February 1939 (which, to be clear, were a small minority of Americans).
Click to expand...
Yes, but there was A LOT of anti-semitism in America in the 1930s.

There was also a lot of anti-communism in the 1930s America, and the Nazis we’re also virulently anti-communist.

And most importantly, there had been no Nazi holocaust in the 1930s.

Obviously, American Nazism was a niche political movement in the 1930s, but it was not the outcast belief system then as it was after WWII.

My point still stands — even if that speaks poorly of 1930s America.
 
superrific said:
1. You should delete this before it's used against you.
2. It was never a defensible political position. Hitler and the Nazis were never, ever shy about who they were. If you want to say this about fascism more generally, maybe you'd be closer to the mark. I would still disagree, but maybe you're in the realm of plausibility. But not about the Nazis. There was never anything defensible about them.
Click to expand...
I’ll edit my word choice. As defensible is the wrong word. But my main point still stands that supporting Nazism today is different than supporting Nazisim in the 1930s.
 
And then another weirdo ending to a Trump event (in response to an audience softball about what voters should know before going to vote):



“… I think my father’s in heaven, I know my mother’s in heaven …”
 
rodoheel said:
I'm not sure why you think that supporting the troops is contrary to an affinity for authoritarianism; in fact, the two are very much compatible.
Click to expand...
I'd go one step further and say that "supporting the troops" has long been a primary trope for authoritarianism.
 
CallMeTyler said:
Enemies of the state. Imagine earnestly arguing that "generals that followed Hitler" is a good thing?
Click to expand...
To me the real story isn’t what the generals did or did not do. The real story is why Trump wants generals like them - because they took a personal oath to Hitler. Trump wants absolute loyalty. That’s the terrifying part.

Of course some tried to kill Hitler but that is another point.
 
Any thoughts on t he report that Trump is considering Cannon for attorney general?

If this is discussed somewhere then apologies. I couldn’t find it.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Any thoughts on t he report that Trump is considering Cannon for attorney general?

If this is discussed somewhere then apologies. I couldn’t find it.
Click to expand...
1. We have no idea if that's actually true.
2. Cannon being AG is the least of our problems if he's elected. In fact, she's better than some of the other names being floated.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Any thoughts on t he report that Trump is considering Cannon for attorney general?

If this is discussed somewhere then apologies. I couldn’t find it.
Click to expand...
It was discussed on the Trump civil case thread. It will be a good thing when Trump is out of the political sphere. If nothing else, it will reduce the number of threads to track on this site.

Cannon would be dumb to take that job. She's likely be canned in two years and then she'd have limited job opportunities after that. She should angle for an appointment to the 11th Circuit instead.
 
Calheel said:
It was discussed on the Trump civil case thread. It will be a good thing when Trump is out of the political sphere. If nothing else, it will reduce the number of threads to track on this site.

Cannon would be dumb to take that job. She's likely be canned in two years and then she'd have limited job opportunities after that. She should angle for an appointment to the 11th Circuit instead.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of something a little more permanent than out of the political sphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top