Trump's Book of Hitler Quotes

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I just don't see the gain in the racism, where I do see a gain in being against illegal immigration (again...don't read this as my being against immigration...legal or otherwise)

This is one of several studies on the subject.

 

Quote

Overall, the model demonstrates that besides partisanship, fears about immigrants and cultural displacement were more powerful factors than economic concerns in predicting support for Trump among white working-class voters. Moreover, the effects of economic concerns were complex—with economic fatalism predicting support for Trump, but economic hardship predicting support for Clinton.

Playing up xenophobia has brought Trump the votes for the presidency. He is merely applying the same techniques to the midterms. I already mentioned the issue with illegal immigration, but to make it perfectly clear, it is not the worry that folks may come over without following rules. It is the fear of cultural displacement by others. I.e. xenophobia in its purest form.

From another report (Schafner et al., 2018, PSQ 133:1 p.9-34):

Quote

We find that racism and sexism attitudes were strongly associated with vote choice in 2016, even after accounting for partisanship, ideology, and other standard factors. These factors were more important in 2016 than in 2012, suggesting that the explicitly racial and gendered rhetoric of the 2016 campaign served to activate these attitudes in the minds of many voters.

Do yo see the gain in racism now? He has ideologically aligned himself with White Nationalists, and it has brought him a clear advantages. It is not the worry about following rules, it is not about immigration. It is about immigration of folks that look differently. It is the fear of changing demographics.

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So. You believe this has no negative effect, for Trump/Republicans, for any part of the remaining 92% if racism is directed at Hispanics? That's a pretty sad thought...

I find the implication here to be disingenuous. You are posting as you don't understand why a politician would pander to one group at the expense of another yet that is how most politicians do it. Politicians who champion tax increases do so are the expense of discouraging those who oppose tax increases. Politicians who advocate for anything do it at the expense of those against and vice versa.The most casual of political observers understand this. I also find it hard to believe that 2yrs into Trumps presidency and a decade into Trump being a regular in promoting right wing conspiracies you are posting as if the notion that Trump is a known bigot is worth debate. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I find the implication here to be disingenuous. You are posting as you don't understand why a politician would pander to one group at the expense of another yet that is how most politicians do it. Politicians who champion tax increases do so are the expense of discouraging those who oppose tax increases. Politicians who advocate for anything do it at the expense of those against and vice versa.The most casual of political observers understand this. I also find it hard to believe that 2yrs into Trumps presidency and a decade into Trump being a regular in promoting right wing conspiracies you are posting as if the notion that Trump is a known bigot is worth debate. 

Let's say CY wants more taxing and you don't. I might announce more taxes realizing that might get CY out to vote for me realizing I might not get your vote. I don't throw in that I think you wear ugly shirts, because that would just add assurance that you might not vote for me and CY might not like that I am insulting you.

In this case I announce more taxes, and CNN tells you that I think your shirts are ugly, and you all believe it because you think I have made disparaging clothing remarks in the past. It doesn't help that you add your confirmation bias, and hear any of my mention of clothing in the worse possible way...and you always answer "how could you not recognize it, it would be disingenuous not to".

Now, maybe I do hate your clothes, but in this case all I did was announce a tax increase.

 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's say CY wants more taxing and you don't. I might announce more taxes realizing that might get CY out to vote for me realizing I might not get your vote. I don't throw in that I think you wear ugly shirts, because that would just add assurance that you might not vote for me and CY might not like that I am insulting you.

In this case I announce more taxes, and CNN tells you that I think your shirts are ugly, and you all believe it because you think I have made disparaging clothing remarks in the past. It doesn't help that you add your confirmation bias, and hear any of my mention of clothing in the worse possible way...and you always answer "how could you not recognize it, it would be disingenuous not to".

Now, maybe I do hate your clothes, but in this case all I did was announce a tax increase.

 

This reads more like a justification of your position than a legitimate reason for claiming not to understand something. Obviously you are familiar with politicians hurling insults. Considering we both understanding that insults and low blows are common place in today's political environment your disparaging clothing remark analogy makes no sense. It absolutely happens. 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's say CY wants more taxing and you don't. I might announce more taxes realizing that might get CY out to vote for me realizing I might not get your vote. I don't throw in that I think you wear ugly shirts, because that would just add assurance that you might not vote for me and CY might not like that I am insulting you.

In this case I announce more taxes, and CNN tells you that I think your shirts are ugly, and you all believe it because you think I have made disparaging clothing remarks in the past. It doesn't help that you add your confirmation bias, and hear any of my mention of clothing in the worse possible way...and you always answer "how could you not recognize it, it would be disingenuous not to".

Now, maybe I do hate your clothes, but in this case all I did was announce a tax increase.

 

You are creating a hypothetical here, but rather obviously there is a long list of actions taken by the administration that allow us to contextualize their action. This does include hiring folks such as Bannon and Miller who have crafted policies exploiting and enhancing racial division, cozy up to white supremacists. And no, I do not accept the interpretation that it is all to reduce illegal immigration. The administration has enacted numerous policy changes to curb immigration and have tried to target some areas (you known how Trump called them, do you?). Highly qualified H1B holder are increasingly denied green cards and the list goes on. Add that to his overall rhetoric, the only question that could be asked is not whether the policies are based on nativist/ white nationalists ideals. No, the only aspect one could question is whether Trump actually believes them or whether they are merely strategic. However, given his personal history as well as his reflexive defense of white murderers (both sides, anyone?) the weight of evidence clearly tilts to one side.

If it walks like a duck talks like a duck and has trouble condemning White supremacists or neo-nazis, you may have racist duck. If, on the other hand, you insist on ignoring all the rhetoric, personal history, targets of his policies, the useless cruelty involved, use of nativist language, the target demographics and their attitudes, the  and thereby virtually everything that creates context and counter it with a theoretical, then I am afraid I have to believe that you are not arguing in good faith. 

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

You are creating a hypothetical here, but rather obviously there is a long list of actions taken by the administration that allow us to contextualize their action. This does include hiring folks such as Bannon and Miller who have crafted policies exploiting and enhancing racial division, cozy up to white supremacists. And no, I do not accept the interpretation that it is all to reduce illegal immigration. The administration has enacted numerous policy changes to curb immigration and have tried to target some areas (you known how Trump called them, do you?). Highly qualified H1B holder are increasingly denied green cards and the list goes on. Add that to his overall rhetoric, the only question that could be asked is not whether the policies are based on nativist/ white nationalists ideals. No, the only aspect one could question is whether Trump actually believes them or whether they are merely strategic. However, given his personal history as well as his reflexive defense of white murderers (both sides, anyone?) the weight of evidence clearly tilts to one side.

If it walks like a duck talks like a duck and has trouble condemning White supremacists or neo-nazis, you may have racist duck. If, on the other hand, you insist on ignoring all the rhetoric, personal history, targets of his policies, the useless cruelty involved, use of nativist language, the target demographics and their attitudes, the  and thereby virtually everything that creates context and counter it with a theoretical, then I am afraid I have to believe that you are not arguing in good faith. 

 

I'll go all in with you here: Trump is an all out racist and doesn't want people from "shithole countries".

[Raider5678]

This topic is definitely no longer about Donald Trump and Hitler Quotes.

My final position on that is I don't know whether he does or not, however, it is true that hundreds of thousands of people study Hitler for multiple reasons, from military purposes, psychology, and yes, even public speaking tips.

Hitler was an evil bastard who murdered millions of people. He deserves no praise or excuse for his actions, however, it is a fact that he successfully took control of Germany and was extremely good at what he did. If people wish to study how he got there, I don't care. The ability to speak to crowds like Hitler did, the ability to organize wars, and the ability to do many other things Hitler did are not inherently evil.

What's evil is what it's used for.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'll go all in with you here: Trump is an all out racist and doesn't want people from "shithole countries".

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

You are creating a hypothetical here, but rather obviously there is a long list of actions taken by the administration that allow us to contextualize their action. This does include hiring folks such as Bannon and Miller who have crafted policies exploiting and enhancing racial division, cozy up to white supremacists. And no, I do not accept the interpretation that it is all to reduce illegal immigration. The administration has enacted numerous policy changes to curb immigration and have tried to target some areas (you known how Trump called them, do you?). Highly qualified H1B holder are increasingly denied green cards and the list goes on. Add that to his overall rhetoric, the only question that could be asked is not whether the policies are based on nativist/ white nationalists ideals. No, the only aspect one could question is whether Trump actually believes them or whether they are merely strategic. However, given his personal history as well as his reflexive defense of white murderers (both sides, anyone?) the weight of evidence clearly tilts to one side.

If it walks like a duck talks like a duck and has trouble condemning White supremacists or neo-nazis, you may have racist duck. If, on the other hand, you insist on ignoring all the rhetoric, personal history, targets of his policies, the useless cruelty involved, use of nativist language, the target demographics and their attitudes, the  and thereby virtually everything that creates context and counter it with a theoretical, then I am afraid I have to believe that you are not arguing in good faith. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This reads more like a justification of your position than a legitimate reason for claiming not to understand something. Obviously you are familiar with politicians hurling insults. Considering we both understanding that insults and low blows are common place in today's political environment your disparaging clothing remark analogy makes no sense. It absolutely happens. 

Very much. I am new to the idea that credible news sources in constitutional democracies did the same. 

CY and SJ. I believe you would have come to that same conclusion without the "extra help" of CNN interpreting it for you, and telling you what you should think.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

CY and SJ. I believe you would have come to that same conclusion without the "extra help" of CNN interpreting it for you, and telling you what you should think.

I don't watch CNN; I just read BBC, Reuters and Japan Times daily. I'm getting increasing disenchanted with the BBC though because it has some pretty obvious agendas, which it seeks to promote with quite unseemly enthusiasm. I like neutrality.

Edited November 2, 2018 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I don't watch CNN; I just read BBC, Reuters and Japan Times daily. I'm getting increasing disenchanted with the BBC though because it has some pretty obvious agendas, which it seeks to promote with quite unseemly enthusiasm. I like neutrality.

It seems to be the way the press is heading at the moment.

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It seems to be the way the press is heading at the moment.

Some are creeping towards becoming propaganda outlets. Even if the motive/agenda is noble and humanitarian, or I just agree with its position, it's not good for a news outlet's credibility and trustworthiness. They should not take sides in the main news sections.

[CharonY]

38 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Some are creeping towards becoming propaganda outlets. Even if the motive/agenda is noble and humanitarian, or I just agree with its position, it's not good for a news outlet's credibility and trustworthiness. They should not take sides in the main news sections.

In all honesty I believe it was always the case. The main difference (at least where I grew up) was that the opinion space was less divergent. Things like racism were considered non-issues, for example. Or it was just generally accepted (and rarely challenged) that minorities are more criminal. Many politicians did the same thing as they do today e.g. regarding the migrants in middle America: only now with a more polarized media landscape you will then have those that quickly attack or defend such notions, creating more polarized press.

There is more going on due to the rise of the Murdoch empire and the resulting change of the news business, that increasingly gets entangled with opinions as, frankly, that's where the money is. The next generation will probably have personalized youtube channels for their news consumption.

And after typing all this I am going to apologize for going off-topic.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

In all honesty I believe it was always the case. The main difference (at least where I grew up) was that the opinion space was less divergent. Things like racism were considered non-issues, for example. Or it was just generally accepted (and rarely challenged) that minorities are more criminal. Many politicians did the same thing as they do today e.g. regarding the migrants in middle America: only now with a more polarized media landscape you will then have those that quickly attack or defend such notions, creating more polarized press.

There is more going on due to the rise of the Murdoch empire and the resulting change of the news business, that increasingly gets entangled with opinions as, frankly, that's where the money is. The next generation will probably have personalized youtube channels for their news consumption.

And after typing all this I am going to apologize for going off-topic.

 

We have all wandered a bit, but just to tie it back in, control of the press is typical of most totalitarian regimes. Hitler did that and it would be hard to believe Trump would not do it if given the opportunity.

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Hitler did that and it would be hard to believe Trump would not do it if given the opportunity.

He already does it in a soft way, by delegitimizing any reports he does not like. A related strategy is to paint pre-Trump US, Europe and Canada in a dystopian vision with Muslim no-go zones, general lawlessness and marauding hordes of drug dealers (with darker complexion, of course) and to  present himself as a messianic figure to bring back the good ole America. By creating and engaging in this alternative reality he basically removes all influence of independent media from his followers as any information now needs to be filtered through a specific lens before considered real. Mechanisms for this are in place by outlets such as  Fox (other than the hard news section), Breitbart, Sinclair media etc.

In some ways this is brilliant. Instead of using force to withhold information from folks, he makes them do the work (which, arguably, is his business model).

[iNow]

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/04/13/trump-claims-total-authority-over-state-decisions-1275506
 

Quote

“When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total," Trump said at a press briefing Monday when asked about the governors' plans. "And that’s the way it’s got to to be. It's total. It’s total. And the governors know that.

<...>
"They will agree to it. But the authority of the president of the United States, having to do with the subject we’re talking about, is total.”