HITLER and TRUMP

[2Dbunk]

"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer reveals the history of Adoph Hitler’s efforts in a very, very negative way. But there are some (small amount?) who disagree. Likewise the Holocaust deniers claim that history was distorted by the victor’s claims of gross genocide. Most rational people that I know agree with the former – that Nazism is highly unethical!

I’m in the process of reading "Bonhoeffer" (published in 2011) and find that Eric Metaxas confirms much, if not all, of Shirer’s history. What's most disturbing is that many passages in the text show Hitler’s chaotic politics, mannerisms, and untruthfulness could be attributed to Donald Trump (just reverse their names).

Bonhoeffer was a theologian in Germany who was basically a fundamentalist (the established churches of the 1920s and 30s he found superficial when it came to celebrating the spirit of Jesus). Bonhoeffer quickly became disillusioned with Hitler’s manipulation of those main stream churches and the dictator's disdain for everything Christian while providing lip service to it so as to maintain his “religious� demeanor with the common folk (or he would not have survived in politics, duh).

I ask if anyone cares to debate the Donald’s intentions in making America great again in a (subtle?) but parallel way of Hitler’s efforts to make Germany great again? For that matter one might even throw in Trump’s parroting of Putin’s making Russia great again (Trump does seem to have an affinity for dictators – he even said he wouldn’t mind the opportunity to try that role).

One other question for debate: Why are evangelical Republicans and some Democrats lapping up his chaotic, untruthful soup? With all the indictments docketed the “swamp� seems to be getting deeper -- and thicker.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 47 by Danmark]

Agreed and yes, I've read key portions of the report.

Not the whole thing, because last I checked, it was still under lock and key.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 49 by rikuoamero]

Hi Riko,

I think I understand where Danmark is coming from:

I can understand why. If one goes through with an abortion, one has, in their eyes, killed a person. This would be far worse than lying, stealing, hypocrisy and adultery. So I can understand Elijah John's stance on this matter when it comes to picking the lesser of two evils.

Taking ANY life SHOULD be a sensitive issue, but religionists hypocritically look the other way when animals are slaughtered and big game are taken as trophies. Why is that? Well, first of all, these life forms have yet to assert their rights; have failed to stand their ground in protest (and when they do, are often euthenanized (as a danger to humans), only because of their natural stand on territorial possession.

Some of these animals are on the endangered list but are killed without compunction for their monetary value. NO PROBLEM: they haven't asserted their rights, and are not likely to do so anytime soon. On the other hand, we have humans wrestling with the unthinkable thought of killing their own fetuses. Yes, I can see that religionists would play this anti-abortion card (if religions did not exist, this specter would not be near as problematic). Perhaps that sounds cynical but we are hardly an endangered species. In fact, one of the greatest dangers to mankind is to overpopulate the planet.

What I'm saying is: choosing between a woman's health & welfare, and her fetus' survival should be a no-brainer and her her decision alone. To take away her rights in favor of a life form that can't assert its rights is hypocritical, especially when you look at the entire animal kingdom.

"Oh, what about the pain of termination?" you might ask. So, it will be gone with hardly a whimper, like, say, the "humane" throat slitting of chickens and pigs.

I too, like Danmark, take issue with Elijah John for his iconoclastic stance on where humanity goes with this issue. It is a typical example of theists placing unnecessary limits on progress, as heinous as they may seem.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 25 by Danmark]

Let me step into the fray. Just to remind people, just so it's in their mind when reading my reply, I am Irish, in Ireland, I am atheist and as such have no way to actually vote in US elections, nor would I be accused of holding Christian beliefs.

He has NOTHING in common with true Christianity.

I strongly disagree with this part, the "True Christianity" part. Danmark, you and I are atheists. I have gone on record and I would be very surprised if you hadn't, as saying that there is no such thing as "True Christianity", that if one person who calls themselves Christian says of another person that they aren't Christian....

First, I do not call myself an 'atheist.' I am simply not a theist, or if you will, I am a 'non theist.' I don't think theism should be dignified by using the term 'atheist.'

Second, I define a 'true Christian' as someone who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the synoptic gospels. Admittedly there is room for alternate definitions. This is mine.
A 'true Christian' would believe in The Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount; that one should put others before self and renounce worldly goods and give all to the poor. The last 'true Christian' died on the cross.

I believe there are many who approximate true Christianity, tho' in their own minds are 'sinners' and fall short of the Christian ideal. In the context of this subtopic, the current resident of the White House represents the antithesis of 'true Christianity.' He is a serial adulterer and sexual predator, a pathological liar, corrupt in every way; a person upon whom 1000 Republican and Democratic prosecutors would file charges for obstruction of justice, were he not serving as President. He is a racist and xenophobe who not only does not understand the Constitution [or the Bible], but hates many of the principles upon which the U.S. was founded. He is an admitted [white] nationalist. I've encountered diseases I've liked more. I think he is mentally ill and may not even fully understand what he does. He is likely filled with self loathing and profound insecurity and in that he is justified.

[PaulofSarja]

He is an admitted [white] nationalist.

When did he admit that?

[Elijah John]

He is an admitted [white] nationalist.

When did he admit that?

I doubt very much he ever did. Even CNN's Fareed Zakaria (no friend of President Trump) began his special on race with the disclaimer "Donald Trump is not a white nationalist." Underline the "not".

Yeah, the President is white, and he is a nationalist, but that is very different than saying that Trump is a "white nationalist".

"Nationalist" simply means a person wants to put their country first. Any American president should.

Whereas a "white nationalist" wants the country to be only for, or primarily for white people.

Quite a difference.

[Danmark]

He is an admitted [white] nationalist.

When did he admit that?

I doubt very much he ever did. Even CNN's Fareed Zakaria (no friend of President Trump) began his special on race with the disclaimer "Donald Trump is not a white nationalist." Underline the "not".

Yeah, the President is white, and he is a nationalist, but that is very different than saying that Trump is a "white nationalist".

"Nationalist" simply means a person wants to put their country first. Any American president should.

Whereas a "white nationalist" wants the country to be only for, or primarily for white people.

Quite a difference.

You make a good point, EJ; however, he IS an admitted nationalist as you agree AND can you make the case that he is not a racist? 'White nationalist" vs "Racist Nationalist" may be a distinction without a moral difference.

[PaulofSarja]

You make a good point, EJ; however, he IS an admitted nationalist as you agree AND can you make the case that he is not a racist? 'White nationalist" vs "Racist Nationalist" may be a distinction without a moral difference.

Gandhi, Churchill and Mandela were nationalists, no big deal.

We have no evidence to say Trump is a racist, thus I have made the case that he is not a racist! Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

Danmark you repeat fake news, then when you are called on it, you simply shift the burden of proof. What is up with that?

[Danmark]

You make a good point, EJ; however, he IS an admitted nationalist as you agree AND can you make the case that he is not a racist? 'White nationalist" vs "Racist Nationalist" may be a distinction without a moral difference.

Gandhi, Churchill and Mandela were nationalists, no big deal.

We have no evidence to say Trump is a racist, thus I have made the case that he is not a racist! Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

Danmark you repeat fake news, then when you are called on it, you simply shift the burden of proof. What is up with that?

Paulo you are practicing equivocation by equating patriotism with nationalism. Perhaps you are unclear on the distinction. This quote from Sydney Harris may help:
The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sydney_J._Harris[b][/b]

You have not 'made a case' that Trump is not a racist. That he is has been documented by his own statements and by the negotiations he and his father made regarding their racist policies in real estate.

But the truth is that Trump has battled charges of racism almost as long as he has been in the public eye — and long before he stepped into politics.

A January 2018 opinion article in the New York Times calls Trump a racist. "He talks about and treats people differently based on their race," the story says. "He has done so for years, and he is still doing so."

The piece compiles quotes from Trump from before he ran for president as a Republican in the 2016 election and cites incidents such as when, in the 1970s, Trump’s real estate company "tried to avoid renting apartments to African-Americans."

A February Vox article similarly documents what it calls the president’s "long history of racism" from the 1970s to date. The story references the first time Trump appeared in the New York Times — Oct. 16, 1973 — when the paper ran a front-page story about a lawsuit against the then-27-year-old and his father.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fac ... m-decades/

I've documented my claims. You have not. instead you repeat the mantra of a liar (Trump) and the worst and most biased of all major news organizations, Fox.

Trump is clearly projecting when he bellows, "Fake News!" Perhaps you are doing the same. Your unsupported claims have no value on this forum, which demands support.
See rule 5:
Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence.

[PaulofSarja]

Paulo you are practicing equivocation by equating patriotism with nationalism. Perhaps you are unclear on the distinction. This quote from Sydney Harris may help:
The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sydney_J._Harris[b][/b]

Danmark you are practicing quote mining, it is possible to find many definitions of nationalism by many people with various agendas. We want to find a more neutral source such as Britannica which defines nationalism as "an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual or group interests." https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism

You have not 'made a case' that Trump is not a racist. That he is has been documented by his own statements and by the negotiations he and his father made regarding their racist policies in real estate.

Danmark you made the claim that Trump is a white nationalist and to support your claim you shifted the burden of proof by asking "can you make the case that he is not a racist?" No, Danmark, I don't need to make the case that he is not a racist, I only need to make the case that you have not supported your claim. And you had not done so.

But the truth is that Trump has battled charges of racism almost as long as he has been in the public eye — and long before he stepped into politics.

A January 2018 opinion article in the New York Times calls Trump a racist. "He talks about and treats people differently based on their race," the story says. "He has done so for years, and he is still doing so."

The piece compiles quotes from Trump from before he ran for president as a Republican in the 2016 election and cites incidents such as when, in the 1970s, Trump’s real estate company "tried to avoid renting apartments to African-Americans."

A February Vox article similarly documents what it calls the president’s "long history of racism" from the 1970s to date. The story references the first time Trump appeared in the New York Times — Oct. 16, 1973 — when the paper ran a front-page story about a lawsuit against the then-27-year-old and his father.
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fac ... m-decades/

Notice that the title of the article that you linked to is "Allegations of racism against Trump didn't start when he challenged the Democrats". Danmark, how many allegations of racism does it take to prove that someone is a racist? If Trump were a racist the article would have been called "Trump is a racist, and here is proof".

I've documented my claims. You have not. instead you repeat the mantra of a liar (Trump) and the worst and most biased of all major news organizations, Fox.

No, Danmark, you have not documented your claims, you have only copied from fake news sources. If you want evidence of that claim, we will need to start a new thread. If you know how to Google you can find the evidence by yourself. And btw Fox News is also fake news.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 58 by PaulofSarja]

It is abundantly clear your definition of 'fake news' is "I disagree with it." Congratulations! You have something in common with Donnie Drumpf.