Patterico's Pontifications

12/4/2019

Having Some Fun with the Arguments Used to Defend Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:35 am



I decided to have some fun on Twitter this morning, imagining what it would be like if the same arguments used to defend Trump had been used to defend Hitler.

I am not comparing Trump to Hitler. Anyone who says this in the comments section is a liar. I am a) having some fun and b) comparing arguments in defense and not the people themselves. As odious as Trump is, he is not Hitler.

(If Hitler were living today, however, Trump would suck up to him and praise everything Hitler did, and you know that’s true — because the more like Hitler any current world leader is, the more Trump praises them.)

Without further ado, here are the tweets.

Actually, I had no intention of quitting my day job, but thanks for the unsolicited advice!

187 Responses to “Having Some Fun with the Arguments Used to Defend Trump”

  1. This is all you got? As Scott Adams said, Argument by analogy is very, very weak. i don’t see Trump as Hitler, so the analogy makes little sense. Nor is it funny, since trump has been called Hitler/Nazi at least 1,000 times the MSM in the last 3 years. But I’m sure some Never_Trumper, or Democrat likes it.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  2. I’m a NeverTrumper, but I tend to agree with you, rcocean. Hitler is such an extreme case that satire doesn’t work with him in the mix. Might work better with Lenin or Robespierre.

    The other problem is that in the final years of the Weimar Republic, some of those arguments were, in slightly different form (because of course genocide was explicitly proclaimed until long after Hitler was in power, used to support Hitler. And many German businessmen and conservatives helped Hitler politically because they thought they could control him when he was in power, sort of like the GOP establishment thought they could control Trump.

    kishnevi (496414)

  3. As odious as Trump is, he is not Hitler.

    Way to drive a wedge between Trump and his base, Patterico.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. You really worked hard at this, didn’t you? Good job.

    PTw (894877)

  5. *genocide was not explicitly proclaimed*

    the importance of three letters!

    kishnevi (496414)

  6. Yes you are comparing Trump to Hitler. Your disclaimer doesn’t change that. The Hitler comparisons are awful and they trivialize the holocaust. They trivialize the atrocities committed. Please stop.

    Mattsky (55d339)

  7. Oxford debate rule: First one to bring up Hitler, loses.

    There’s also Godwin’s Law:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law?wprov=sfti1

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  8. No, not comparing. But putting words in people’s mouths as though THEY were defending Hitler. Some of this is pretty tortured.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  9. Munroe, he’s not comparing T to H. As he said, anyone who says this in the comment section is a liar. Why are you saying this, Munroe? Are you a liar? Mr. Patterico worked really, really hard on this post and deserves our appreciation.

    PTw (894877)

  10. Hitler is such an extreme case that satire doesn’t work with him in the mix.

    Chaplin’s The Great Dictator is still (rightly) considered one of the greatest works of satire ever made. And The Producers is another.

    Might work better with Lenin or Robespierre.

    Mussolini is undoubtedly the best personal analogy to Trump in the “bumbling, bombastic clown who sucks up to even worse despots” category, but Patrick’s argument does not depend on who the person doing the bad things is.

    Dave (1bb933)

  11. They trivialize the atrocities committed. Please stop.

    Yeah. It’s pretty offensive. My wife lost relatives in the Holocaust.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  12. Chaplin’s The Great Dictator is still (rightly) considered one of the greatest works of satire ever made. And The Producers is another.

    The Producers works because it accepts that Hitler is odious and his odiousness is being used as a plot point. There is nothing there that puts Hitler within the pale, or asserts that he’s just another lying politician.

    I think this is the disconnect I have with Patterico. He sees Trump as unlike any other US politician, I see him as little different from many others (e.g. Gavin Newsome), except that he has the enmity of the entire MSM, where Gavin does not. That Newsome has better manners isn’t germane. He’s still a lying sack o’ spit and serial failure.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  13. Shorter: I do not believe there is such a thing as “good government” so people like Trump in office are neither surprising or particularly rare.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  14. Some people elsewhere are huffing indignantly that psychiatrists are making pronouncements on Trump’s mental state without having met him. Surely those indignant people would never make pronouncements on the mental state of Hitler, or Kim Jong Un, or anyone they haven’t met personally — not matter how extensive the public record of that person’s behavior. Right?

    Those indignant Trump-defenders (like many others) are saying that people who strongly disapprove of Trump are “deranged.” So then, it must be okay to pronounce upon the mental state of people one hasn’t actually met. It just depends on whether the statements are pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

    Radegunda (7d930a)

  15. I’m *shocked* Munroe and RC don’t find this funny.

    Btw, NKs comment was hilarious.

    It’s really hard to see something you identify with compared to histories greatest villain and treat it dispassionately. Especially when you’ve made those same arguments before.

    Time123 (de0f5d)

  16. he more like Hitler any current world leader is, the more Trump praises them.

    It’s not that.

    The more powerful, or dangerous, the dictator is, the more Trump praises him, unless he thinks he can be completely defeated.

    But he’ll jump at the first sign of negotiations. He did that with the Taliban. Even after terminating all negotiations once.

    So what you need is a combination of threats and Munich. I think Chamberlain actually said some nice things about THE LIAR’s (anagram that) peaceful intentions.

    I don’t think Trump has said a good word about Nicholas Maduro or the rulers of Iran because I don’t thinl e has any hopes (or interest) in negotiating with them. And of course there was Baghdadi. What matters to Trump is how much power the dictator has.

    He’s gone both ways Kim Jong Un. When he praises them Trump also praises dictators for qualities they do not have, and even when he in a dispute with them, will say they are really good people at heart or something like that.

    Sammy Finkelman (ce04e1)

  17. I don’t want to argue here, but “Hitler” arguments have lost their real history because of their frequency.

    Friends: consider how often the Democrats have called pretty much any Republican between them and power a “Nazi” or “like Hitler.”

    I appreciate the comments about trivializing the Holocaust, but let’s be brutally honest here: our culture has been employing Hitler comparisons for political grain for many decades. It’s always odious.

    And Patterico, of course, is not doing that.

    When I was in college, my roommate’s father had lost his whole family at Auschwitz. When you see the tattoo that they put on a boy in a death camp, it really impacts you. I cannot imagine what it is like to have lost family that way.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  18. I don’t think these tweets work, either. Some of these arguments work in other more pragmatic, contexts, e.g., lesser of two evils, half a loaf is better is than none, tit for tat. The Hitlerian contrast decontextualizes them by sleight-of-hand switching of premises, i.e. “support for Trump is justified” becomes “support for Hitler is justified.”

    Golden Eagle (8e3954)

  19. These tweets work much better if you imagine Henny Youngman reading them with snare drum separators.
    _

    harkin (337580)

  20. This is a relatively good book
    https://www.amazon.com/Death-Democracy-Hitlers-Downfall-Republic/dp/1250210860/

    Good because it makes clear all the ways the contemporary US is NOT the Weimar Republic…

    kishnevi (496414)

  21. harkin (337580) — 12/4/2019 @ 9:22 am

    “Take my President….please.”

    kishnevi (496414)

  22. Using Hitler as a way to saw ‘really bad person’ does diminish his impact.

    But these are still funny.

    Not all comedy is socially rewarding.

    And I got to see someone use Scott Adams in an ‘appeal to authority’. Which was also funny.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  23. This whole planet has gone insane. The SF writer Robert Heinlein, in his projected “future history” called this period of time (right before a religious dictatorship, incidentally) “The Crazy Years.”

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  24. Good thing we elected Trump so that other countries would stop laughing at us.

    Time123 (36651d)

  25. Wonderfully irreverent….but it will probably hit too close to home for too many.

    It is interesting to speculate what Trump would need to do to actually have some question their support….of course the answer might make be cry….and I’m not a crier

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  26. Shorter: I do not believe there is such a thing as “good government” so people like Trump in office are neither surprising or particularly rare.

    We aren’t just talking about “government”. We’re talking about the President of the United States.

    To make an analogy with business, it’s not that rare to find mid-level managers who are extremely incompetent.

    It is much less common – in a publicly traded company, at least – to find CEO’s who are totally clueless about the business they’re supposed to be running.

    Dave (1bb933)

  27. The comparison between Trump and Hitler may not work, and doesn’t appear to have happened here. The tendency to say ‘you’re wrong because you mentioned hitler’ is so predictable the post actually explained this.

    But the comparison between Trump supporters and Hitler’s is, unfortunately, valid. “Make Germany Great Again” was actually one of their rallies. They wanted a ban on certain groups, same as Trump’s fans cheered the Muslim ban. They roll their eyes at criticism of racism. they think nationalism and strength is implied in a refusal to hold their leader to any standards, whatsoever.

    The distinctions between Hitler and trump are numerous, thank God. If they weren’t I’m not sure his fans would be much different.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  28. Disappointing.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  29. Oxford debate rule: First one to bring up Hitler, loses.

    There’s also Godwin’s Law:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law?wprov=sfti1

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/4/2019 @ 8:24 am

    Oh hey Munroe is saying things that are deceptive or dishonest. Go figure.

    the Godwin’s law thing just says the longer a discussion goes on on the internet, the more likely it is Hitler will be mentioned. There’s no rational rule that mentioning Hitler makes an argument invalid. The arguments that referencing the holocaust can trivialize how horrible it is are more logical, but I really don’t think even that argument is 100% sound.

    Comparing Obama’s birth certificate to the holocaust, or a traffic stop to the holocaust, yes that definitely trivializes it. Comparing a Russian asset like Trump, who has indeed promoted leaders who slaughter a lot of people, from North Korea, to Turkey, is not trivializing that horrible conduct.

    The only way to ensure we do not keep having these atrocities is to be able to talk about them. This rule that we must not remember the holocaust if it applies to contemporary issues that aren’t as extreme has to be handled thoughtfully. Sometimes the comparison is actually very fair. How many millions of people have starved to death in concentration camps in North Korea? How many people have been killed by the Chinese dictatorship that Trump brags he stands with? What about the kurds that Trump betrayed?

    Trump is no Hitler. He is not motivated by the greatness of his country. But the comparison of his support, and the irrational way they ascribe nationalism to politics, is something we should consider.

    Granted, the drama is exhausting. And it’s good to think about just how horrible World War II really was in its consumption of life, and be grateful we do not experience that in our own lives. But Trump’s stalwart fans have damaged our country. They should be ashamed. They will never admit it, but I think this shame is part of what’s driving them to stick with Trump long after he’s proven his critics right.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  30. Good thing we elected Trump so that other countries would stop laughing at us.

    Funny, I thought that was why some people elected Obama. Personally, I do what I think is the right thing to do and to hll what other people think. When I was younger, a good number of people laughed at me. Several of them are now dead. Died quite young, actually. Others are ruined, financially. Others will be soon. Read into that what you may.

    PTw (894877)

  31. “Funny, I thought that was why some people elected Obama. ”

    It’s trivially easy to find Trump tweeting about other countries laughing at us during the Obama administration.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  32. Dustin, Godwin’s Law makes reference to reductio ad Hitlerum. And, it helps to read further:

    For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law.

    If only we could return to the sane era of Bush Jr, when references to Hitler had no place in polite discussion. LOL

    And, I’ll take lectures on dishonesty and deceptiveness from some people. You ain’t on that list.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  33. It’s trivially easy to find Trump tweeting about other countries laughing at us during the Obama administration.

    Yes. Perhaps because he knew Obama cared about such things. It seems Trump doesn’t really care that Trudy and his gf’s think about him. I mean seriously. That guy and his blackface that wasn’t blackface in his numerous cultural appropriation costumes that are not cultural appropriation? Now that’s funny. But not as funny as these tweets. They’re GOLD JERRY. Especially the parts where T does not get compared to H and how everyone who says so in these comments is a liar. SOLID GOLD. Say, remember…remember that time when Chamberlain and Lebrun (yes, I had to look him up) laughed and laughed at H behind his back at Munich? There was video and everything. Wonder what happened to that video…

    PTw (894877)

  34. I am not comparing Trump to Hitler. Anyone who says this in the comments section is a liar.

    Yeah, you are. You can call someone a liar. Does not make him one. See Lincoln’s famous quote about the dog with five legs.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  35. “It seems Trump doesn’t really care that Trudy and his gf’s think about him.”

    Trump absolutely cares.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  36. He is literally Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  37. Yeah, you are.

    No he’s not. He’s demonstrating that the kinds of arguments being used to defend whatever Trump does can be used to defend pretty much anything that anyone does.

    The Trump faithful always find a way to rationalize or deflect. Or they’ll say it’s “deranged” to notice and comment on the most obvious defects of Trump.

    Radegunda (7d930a)

  38. Trump absolutely cares.

    Davethulhu (fab944) — 12/4/2019 @ 10:45 am

    Indeed. Trump can’t rise above. He’s a creepy and insecure guy bragging that women are paralyzed in fear of his power so he can grope them sometimes. Tweeting pictures of himself photoshopped into a muscular athlete’s body. He’s sitting somewhere as we speak angry that someone said something on TV about him that wasn’t nice.

    This isn’t a man who unites a nation into murder. He is absolutely not Hitler, thank God.

    But there is a tremendous similarity between the Nazis saying ‘Make Germany Great Again’ and many Trump fans. Many.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  39. He’s demonstrating that the kinds of arguments being used to defend whatever Trump does can be used to defend pretty much anything that anyone does.

    No, because his argument does not account for the fact that in most cases in politics, the choice is binary. Especially at the presidential level.

    It is perfectly rationale to say, Trump is deeply flawed, but I prefer him to the alternatives.

    That only falls off the rails when you have extreme evil like Hitler. Which Trump is far from.

    A better analogy would be Richard Nixon. Another deeply flawed president. But certainly no Hitler. And I still would prefer Nixon over George McGovern.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  40. I will say Patterico should have known this thread would be a trainwreck. Munroe was obviously going to start screeching REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GODWIN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

    Trolls love to play authority over threads.

    but clearly the post acknowledges this would happen so it’s not that he didn’t know people would be offended. It’s a lack of concern over it. And really, though I do respect the feelings of a lot of commenters who didn’t like this post, the Trump fans should try to get past the Godwin aspect and really consider the point.

    Because DCSCA is right about one thing: Trump will pass. What’s next? Possibly more extremism, and a pendulum swing in both directions. I don’t want my country to keep going down this idiotic path, where both sides ignore everything but how much they hate the other side.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  41. Personally, I think Trump is best compared to Divine.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. And, I’ll take lectures on dishonesty and deceptiveness from some people. You ain’t on that list.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/4/2019 @ 10:28 am

    It’s hilarious how self important some trolls are. The next time you answer a question directly, or respond to a post directly on its own argument, honestly, will be the first time.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  43. It is perfectly rationale to say, Trump is deeply flawed, but I prefer him to the alternatives.

    Yes, and plenty of Republicans got to this point. They didn’t present him in the primary as the solution to our nation’s debt, immigration, foreign policy, and ethics problems.

    Saying Trump is only acceptable as an alternative to something worse is a lot different from those saying trump is perpetually a victim of any investigation or criticism.

    There really are millions of people who would defend Trump from anything. They are not saying he is deeply flawed. They are saying that ugliness is somehow good and necessary, or saying he’s actually not flawed.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  44. ”It’s hilarious how self important some trolls are. The next time you answer a question directly, or respond to a post directly on its own argument, honestly, will be the first time.”
    Dustin (cafb36) — 12/4/2019 @ 11:06 am

    Was there a question? I’m sorry you read my accurate observation and saw a triggering KAG hat instead.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  45. #39. Trump defenders go far beyond saying he’s better than the alternatives. Some will do mouth service to “he’s deeply flawed,” but they tend to get angry when anyone else mentions his flaws. They say it’s some kind of “derangement” to criticize Trump and hold him to account for how he exercises power.

    If it were only a matter of “binary choices” — i.e. “deeply flawed but preferable to the Dem candidate” in a particular election — there wouldn’t be so much hostility to the idea of nominating a better candidate this time, or so much anger directed at other Republicans who don’t show unqualified fealty to Trump at all times.

    Moreover, the angry reactions to criticism of Trump began during the primaries in 2015. There was an unusually intense emotional investment in Trump as the “last chance to save America” and the antidote to all the sins of “politicians.” Too many people accepted Trump’s own “I alone can fix it” self-estimation, and told themselves that he couldn’t possibly ever have any corrupt motives because “he’s already rich” and “he loves America!”

    Too few of those people are willing to accept the evidence telling them that Trump is very far from the selfless patriotic hero with sharp instincts and strategic genius that they longed for.

    Radegunda (7d930a)

  46. They are saying that ugliness is somehow good and necessary

    There is some truth to this. Trump is the answer to decades of deeply entrenched interests in both government and the media. That need to be demolished. Think of him as a wrecking ball. It ain’t pretty, but it is necessary to demolish the building before you build a new one.

    Hard to imagine that someone like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would be able to tell these interests to shove off the way Trump has. They are too scared of being called a racist or some such.

    Imagine if Jeb Bush were president. He might have nominated someone like Brett Kavanaugh (or he might not have). But he would not have withstood the negative pressure of that debacle.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  47. But there is a tremendous similarity between the Nazis saying ‘Make Germany Great Again’ and many Trump fans. Many.

    Dustin (cafb36) — 12/4/2019 @ 10:54 am

    And there’s a tremendous similarity between those who claim that we are always guilty because of the original sin of slavery and Satan. What is your point?

    NJRob (4d595c)

  48. BTW, just to bring the discussion to the issue du jour, why is the United States still in NATO? What justifies its expense to the U.S. taxpayer in 2019? If all it is good for is mocking our president and not paying what they promised, why should we not simply leave?

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  49. Apples & Oranges; the Fuehrer was a vegetarian; the Donald likes his Quarter Pounders with cheese.

    ________

    @40. The Donald is a one-off; a transient to something new– or nothing new; neutering the modern ideological conservative movement his greatest “triumph- if you will.” But conditions are right for a more serious ‘Gathering Storm;’ be wary the true “Hitler” descending from the clouds:

    Bloomberg.

    Und you vill put that Big Gulp down.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. If all it is good for is mocking our president

    Didn’t Trump tell us that the world would stop laughing at us and start respecting us when he’s in charge?

    It has actually been the opposite — which to many people (including many who thought the world overrated Obama) is hardly surprising.

    For others, it’s hard to accept the possibility that when people criticize or mock Trump, the reasons might start with Trump himself, and not with the sins or “derangement” of the observers.

    But if Trump mocks the leadership of our allies, the Trumpist faithful will laugh and parrot the mockery.

    Radegunda (7d930a)

  51. It’s easy to short-hand Hitler references today w/20-20 hindsight using short-burst copy and a few hundred characters to telegraph an encompassing POV. More fascinating is how he rose to power to power to begin with. Go back and review some of the media reports of the era- European and American. For post-WW1 Germans, he restored a Reaganesque pride in country, rebuilt the infrastructure and restored a higher standard of living; [“Life is a Cabaret ol’chum; come to the Cabaret!”] The very institutions he turned on helped him. You’d be astonished at the list of well-known American corporations doing business w/Nazi Germany in those times as well. Google it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  52. Soda is the new cigarettes anyway – replaced by energy drinks for the buzz and multi-culti and DIY substitutes for the sweet taste, but yes its the very concept of the action, not the outcome which is a bridge too far.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  53. how dare you

    mg (8cbc69)

  54. I don’t think these tweets work, either. Some of these arguments work in other more pragmatic, contexts, e.g., lesser of two evils, half a loaf is better is than none, tit for tat. The Hitlerian contrast decontextualizes them by sleight-of-hand switching of premises, i.e. “support for Trump is justified” becomes “support for Hitler is justified.”

    As one of the few dissenters whose view I respect, I’ll respond. For sure, many people who support Trump would not support him if he started acting like Hitler, and I certainly do not say every Trump supporter would. That said, a scary number would. Remember: a scary number of Germans supported Hitler. You think their human nature is different from ours?

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  55. If all it is good for is mocking our president

    LOL who cares? Trump called W the worst president in American history. He lied about having Obama’s real birth certificate. If we actually care about the sacred honor of American presidents what good is Trump?

    But NATO is intended to thwart the Russian dictatorship that owns the GOP. That’s what it’s for. That’s why the GOP hates it right now.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  56. He’s demonstrating that the kinds of arguments being used to defend whatever Trump does can be used to defend pretty much anything that anyone does.

    Bingo.

    No, because his argument does not account for the fact that in most cases in politics, the choice is binary. Especially at the presidential level.

    The hell it doesn’t. Did you skip the tweet that asks: “Who are you going to vote for, the Commies?”

    That you don’t like my argument does not entitle you to misrepresent it. I pre-called people like you liars because I knew you’d show up and I knew you would deliberately ignore my actual point to take cheap shots, so I let everyone know exactly what I thought of everyone (and you are not alone) who made the bullshit argument that I am equating Trump to Hitler.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  57. And there’s a tremendous similarity between those who claim that we are always guilty because of the original sin of slavery and Satan. What is your point?

    NJRob (4d595c) — 12/4/2019 @ 11:28 am

    Well, at the moment my point is that Trump supporters will be inane and bizarre, saying anything to change the subject from criticism of Dear Leader or the worst aspects of the Trump movement.

    It’s unsafe to give a dictator worshiper like Trump that the idea you are blindly loyal.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  58. This thread targets Trump supporters, not Trump.

    For those citing Godwin’s law, Godwin explicitly sanctioned calling certain Trump supporters (the ones at Charlottesville) Nazis. Look it up.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  59. I believe there are people in this very thread who, under the right circumstances, would applaud the rounding up and mass extermination of a group (Muslims?) they did not like. And they would defend the person who ordered that extermination with many of the arguments we see here.

    The comparison is not of Trump to Hitler. It is also not a comparison of anyone who uses these arguments with Nazis. It is a comparison of the most cultish of Trump supporters to Nazi supporters. And that comparison is very pointed and very direct because those people frighten me. And some of them comment on my blog.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  60. ”For those citing Godwin’s law, Godwin explicitly sanctioned calling certain Trump supporters (the ones at Charlottesville) Nazis. Look it up.”
    Patterico (f0ce01) — 12/4/2019 @ 12:37 pm

    Therefore… what?

    I would certainly hope Nazis could be called Nazis, especially when they self identify as such.

    If that was the point of your post, we agree! I don’t think it was, though.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  61. “The right circumstances” means a big enough consensus. With that consensus, you’d be shocked at how many people would go along.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  62. Munroe didn’t read the post. What else is new.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  63. Keep in mind, the difference between a Charlottesville Nazi group and a zealous religious Right faction or machine gun nuts in Kentucky is–

    nothing.

    Just another sliver of a minority recruited to the whole to ‘win the day.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. “Did you skip the tweet that asks: “Who are you going to vote for, the Commies?”

    No, I answered it here, which you ignored:

    It is perfectly rationale to say, Trump is deeply flawed, but I prefer him to the alternatives.

    That only falls off the rails when you have extreme evil like Hitler. Which Trump is far from.

    That is the point you are missing. Trump is bad in some ways, but not uniquely evil the way Hitler was. So what is a valid argument (better than the alternative) applies to Trump but not Hitler. Unless you compare Trump to Hitler, which is what you are doing.

    It’s like saying I shouldn’t promote some candidate for governor because he made the trains run on time, because you could make the same argument to promote Mussolini.

    Now let’s turn this around to you. If the election is Trump vs. Bernie Sanders, who do you intend to vote for? Are Trump’s flaws so unique that he is preferable to a Communist fellow traveler?

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  65. As Scott Adams

    You lost me there.

    Anyway Scott Adams did not say that about my particular statement therefore any application of his statement to mine depends on an analogy. Damn the luck!

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  66. That is the point you are missing. Trump is bad in some ways, but not uniquely evil the way Hitler was. So what is a valid argument (better than the alternative) applies to Trump but not Hitler. Unless you compare Trump to Hitler, which is what you are doing.

    No, it is not. That is just the lie you are telling.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  67. I don’t like accusing people of lying, but when I have stated my point this clearly and it is ignored this blatantly, it is a lie. Bored Lawyer is lying.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  68. Now let’s turn this around to you. If the election is Trump vs. Bernie Sanders, who do you intend to vote for? Are Trump’s flaws so unique that he is preferable to a Communist fellow traveler?

    Are you planning on answering this question? (Actually two question, but I failed arithmetic.)

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  69. I don’t like accusing people of lying, but when I have stated my point this clearly and it is ignored this blatantly, it is a lie. Bored Lawyer is lying.

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

    William Shakespeare, Hamlet

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  70. It is perfectly rationale to say, Trump is deeply flawed, but I prefer him to the alternatives.

    That only falls off the rails when you have extreme evil like Hitler. Which Trump is far from.

    Quite so. But if he were precisely the same evil, some here would still use these arguments to support him. Hey the Commies are worse. Stalin killed more. I can hear them saying it now.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  71. Are you planning on answering this question? (Actually two question, but I failed arithmetic.)

    Am I planning on dancing to the tune of someone lying about my point? Why, no.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  72. It’s your blog, so you can do what you want. But that question exposes the intellectual dishonesty of this whole post.

    So I am now signing out on this post.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  73. @54. But that’s 20/20 hindsight. Remember, at the time, that ‘scary number’ of people were desperately carting wheel barrels full of worthless money around to scrounge for a loaf of bread; what Hitler restored to post- W1 Germans – albeit for what now seems a very brief moment- was a renewal of national pride, a modern, progressing standard of living and the strongest nation in Europe. There’s nothing ‘scary’ about wanting a better life for yourself and your kids- be you American, Russian… or German.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. “Having deliberately misrepresented the arguments here, and having ignored all explanations why my mischaracterization is dishonest, I will now punish everyone by depriving the commentariat of my repeated further distortions.” — Shorter Bored Lawyer

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  75. @54. But that’s 20/20 hindsight. Remember, at the time, that ‘scary number’ of people were desperately carting wheel barrels full of worthless money around to scrounge for a loaf of bread; what Hitler restored to post- W1 Germans – albeit for what now seems a very brief moment- was a renewal of national pride, a modern, progressing standard of living and the strongest nation in Europe. There’s nothing ‘scary’ about wanting a better life for yourself and your kids- be you American, Russian… or German

    Are you explaining why it was defensible to support Hitler or supporting my view that many here would continue to support Trump if he acted like Hitler?

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  76. It required no 20/20 hindsight to discern Hitler’s attitudes towards the Jews in the early to mid 1930s. Taking off the blinders provided good enough vision to anyone who cared to look.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  77. ’“The right circumstances” means a big enough consensus. With that consensus, you’d be shocked at how many people would go along.’
    Patterico (f0ce01) — 12/4/2019 @ 12:48 pm

    The dark night of fascism is always descending with Trump supporters, yet only lands with #NeverTrump.

    It’s not Trump supporters who have spent every waking hour trying to negate the last election, or short circuiting the next.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  78. @75. Both. In the context of the times he made things better for the German on the street. There’s something to that ‘all politics is local’ thing; full belly, new job, pride in country, etc. Look at Trump’s core numbers- they hover around 25%-30% and like the core Nazis, they’re committed to the cause for life– even today.

    @76. And who are Trump’s ‘Jews’ today? Islamist? Mexicans? Or maybe conservative ideologues?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  79. Mel Brooks devoted his entire career to mocking Hitler. In fact, in every one of his movies, from Blazing Saddles to Young Frankenstein, there is a strong anti-Nazi message.

    Trump is no Hitler, although he’d like to be. The only response to his presidency is through mockery.

    I wonder what Mel Brooks would have done with him on film. He wouldn’t have compare him to Hitler, but he would have ridiculed him as the idiot he is.

    Gawain's Ghost (6da1c0)

  80. And who are Trump’s ‘Jews’ today? Islamist? Mexicans? Or maybe conservative ideologues?

    Well, we know what sort of people he has labeled “human scum.”

    Radegunda (7d930a)

  81. @75/@76. I’m less concerned about Trump- from my POV the strategy has been a success- and the entertainment value alone is priceless [I know, I know, you’re sick of that reference but it’s that very stagecraft which perpetuates him; the cameras can’t look away.] Better to be wary of the ‘smarter,’ more devious ‘yes people’ around him until they go under the bus; the ones who know how to push his buttons ndan do real damage; the Millers, Mulvaneys, Perrys, Grahams, Pompeos, Barrs, Giulianis— and Putins.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  82. @79. Mel would [or maybe will] make a film with him as president, GG. 😉 Comedy gold! He’s done a proto-Trump already: Blazing Saddles’ Governor Lepetomane.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  83. Radegunda – noted – so when are we going to see Romney, Kristol and (fill in the blanks as you see fit) in a similar mockup of this?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  84. Patterico,

    This post was funny, and I liked it. But I have a low opinion of Trump so it’s easy for me.

    I think engaging with this post requires a lot from Trump supporters. Hitler’s atrocities evoke a visceral reaction in most people. Trump has been compared to Hitler by political opponents. This has been exaggerated by some in the right wing media into ‘all trump critics think Trump is like Hitler.” And “All of Trump’s opponents think all of his supporters are Nazis and they think you’re a Nazi.” So, if I try to show empathy to one of Trump’s angrier supporters on here I can see how it would be hard for them to believe you were sincere when you said you weren’t comparing Trump to Hitler. This is especially true when grievance about being respected is very much part of the Trump brand.

    Analogies are a great way to get a point across, so I’ll use one. 😉

    I’ve been lurking for a long time and I remember a post you did about using the phrase ‘Here Boy’ to call a dog in from a field when there was a black man standing by the dog. (Was a great post btw) My take was that unless the black man had reason to give you the benefit of the doubt even if you made clear you were calling the dog there was a chance they would be offended. If the black man already felt you didn’t like or respect black people there’s a good chance he might conclude you really were trying to insult him, in addition to calling the dog. If the black man is Al Sharpton they will certainly express offence.
    In this analogy RC is Al Sharpton and borer lawyer might be the man who already felt you didn’t like or respect them.

    Also, NK’s comment still makes me chuckle.

    Time123 (36651d)

  85. It required no 20/20 hindsight to discern Hitler’s attitudes towards the Jews in the early to mid 1930s. Taking off the blinders provided good enough vision to anyone who cared to look.

    Unless, of course, you’re a carefree,’free market capitalist…’

    https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american-companies-that-aided-the-nazis.php

    Coca-Cola, Ford, Kodak, Chase, Woolworth, Alcoa, General Motors, IBM…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8P80A8vy9I

    ‘Money, Money’… ‘Cabaret’ 1972

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  86. PTw

    Yes. Perhaps because he knew Obama cared about such things. It seems Trump doesn’t really care that Trudy and his gf’s think about him.

    I think Trump deeply cares about what people think and say about him. I think he talked about it because he thought it was important. The evidence is readily available so I don’t expect that I can show you something you haven’t already seen and change your mind.

    This, combined with the fact that it’s not really that important, is what makes it funny.

    Time123 (36651d)

  87. Remember, at the time, that ‘scary number’ of people were desperately carting wheel barrels full of worthless money around to scrounge for a loaf of bread

    Learn some history. Hyperinflation in Germany ended a decade before Hitler came to power.

    Dave (f09557)

  88. @87. Learn some history… Yes, Dave, you do that:

    ‘Germany: Economic collapse and political problems, 1929–1933

    The Wall Street Crash of 1929 marked the beginning of the worldwide Great Depression, which hit Germany as hard as any nation. In July 1931, the Darmstätter und Nationalbank – one of the biggest German banks – failed. In early 1932, the number of unemployed had soared to more than 6,000,000.

    On top of the collapsing economy came a political crisis: the political parties represented in the Reichstag were unable to build a governing majority in the face of escalating extremism from the far right (the Nazis, NSDAP). In March 1930, President Hindenburg appointed Heinrich Brüning Chancellor, invoking article 48 of Weimar’s constitution, which allowed him to override the Parliament. To push through his package of austerity measures against a majority of Social Democrats, Communists and the NSDAP (Nazis), Brüning made use of emergency decrees and dissolved Parliament. In March and April 1932, Hindenburg was re-elected in the German presidential election of 1932.

    The Nazi Party was the largest party in the national elections of 1932. On 31 July 1932 it received 37.3% of the votes, and in the election on 6 November 1932 it received less, but still the largest share, 33.1%, making it the biggest party in the Reichstag. The Communist KPD came third, with 15%. Together, the anti-democratic parties of the far right were now able to hold a considerable share of seats in Parliament, but they were at sword’s point with the political left, fighting it out in the streets. The Nazis were particularly successful among Protestants, among unemployed young voters, among the lower middle class in the cities and among the rural population. It was weakest in Catholic areas and in large cities. On 30 January 1933, pressured by former Chancellor Franz von Papen and other conservatives, President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor… The Nazi regime restored economic prosperity and ended mass unemployment using heavy spending on the military, while suppressing labor unions and strikes. The return of prosperity gave the Nazi Party enormous popularity, with only minor, isolated and subsequently unsuccessful cases of resistance among the German population over the 12 years of rule…‘- source, wikikraut

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  89. “That border is a mess for a long time. We pulled our soldiers out and took over the oil. We have soldiers where the oil is. And that’s the way I like it,” Trump said about Syria. (Politico) He also said: “So we have the oil. And we can do with the oil what we want.”

    He is Biff Tannen.

    noel (f22371)

  90. @89. Biff Tannen

    LOL Bingo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  91. @80. In Georgetown they’re known as ‘Deplorables…’ Have you hugged your Bible and kissed your gun today? 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  92. OT- I think Herr Drumpf will get over this recent rebuff from the Georgia governor real quick. I’m sure he’s scrambling to schedule a one to one with the newly appointed Madame Senator, Pence rules be damned.

    urbanleftbehind (9f2e0c)

  93. I know when they will stop defending Trump. When they wake up on November 4th and realize that he was beaten in a landslide by the little gay guy…. and with a record of a good economy to boot.

    noel (f22371)

  94. Very disappointed in you. I didn’t vote for the guy, but this is ridiculous. “I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler” when I compare Trump to Hitler? “I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler” when I compare arguments in support of Trump to arguments in support of Hitler? Disingenuous at best. I had thought you better than this.

    Publius (81b082)

  95. Personally, I think Trump is best compared to Divine.
    nk (dbc370) — 12/4/2019 @ 11:00 am

    Aw shucks, nk. I thought you meant This Devine!

    felipe (023cc9)

  96. DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/4/2019 @ 2:42 pm

    LOL. You’re so dishonest.

    Unemployment is not hyperinflation and does not lead to “desperately carting wheel barrels full of worthless money around”.

    In fact, when Hitler came to power Germany was near the end of a period of severe *deflation* (falling prices), which is typical of a depressed economy with high unemployment. Deflation means you get wealthier just by hiding money in the mattress until tomorrow, when it will buy more than it does today. And with a strong disincentive to spend, demand collapses, taking peoples’ jobs with it.

    Dave (f09557)

  97. @96. ROFLMAO. You’ve been tagged and bagged; nobody mentioned hyperinflation– but you.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  98. DCSCA, what do you mean by wheelbarrels of worthless money if not hyperinflation?

    Dustin (cafb36)

  99. ‘Liar Dave’–yeah, that works with the times; quite Trumpian! 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  100. @98. What do you mean if you say ‘I’m starving’- maybe time for a snack. Get over yourself.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. I will try to get over myself. But wheelbarrows of worthless money really sounds like a complaint that the money lost its value and people need absurd amounts of it… due to hyperinflation.

    I do need a snack, thanks for pointing this out.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  102. Way off topic: Smart

    felipe (023cc9)

  103. The truth, ‘Liar Dave’ is Germany was having trouble. What a sad, sad story. Needed a new leader to restore its former glory. Where oh where was he? Where could that man be? They looked around, and then they found, “the man for you and me…” 😉

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPXHRX8Q2hs

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  104. @101. Let’s all just go with Germans were a fat dumb and happy lot looking for a little excitement in the 30s and 40s. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  105. Very disappointed in you. I didn’t vote for the guy, but this is ridiculous. “I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler” when I compare Trump to Hitler? “I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler” when I compare arguments in support of Trump to arguments in support of Hitler? Disingenuous at best. I had thought you better than this

    The fact that the point of the post sailed over your head does not mean I am in fact better than this.

    Patterico (f0ce01)

  106. Dave, see #@85:

    Hop in your Ford pick-up, use your Chase credit card and have a Coke mit a sieg-heil smile. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. Patterico’s post is a good one. Cut off the fat and what this comes down to is the sinister appeal of authoritarianism, a characteristic strong in big business execs who run companies which are most decidely not democracies. Trump, in spite of his projected image of executive experience, is small potatoes compared to the smarts of Bloomberg.

    Did a thesis that touched on this decades go. It’s Bloomberg that should be alarming to everyone.

    Watch him.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. 01. Let’s all just go with Germans were a fat dumb and happy lot looking for a little excitement in the 30s and 40s. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/4/2019 @ 4:36 pm

    Well that’s one way to put it

    Dustin (cafb36)

  109. Breaking- Active shooter, Pearl Harbor.

    This is no drill. :-(

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  110. So to summarize, when Hitler came to power, nobody had been “desperately carting wheel barrels full of worthless money around to scrounge for a loaf of bread” in Germany for about ten years.

    Dave (050ab0)

  111. 110. So to summarize: “nobody?” That kind of conjecture makes you a solid Trumpster; get in der bread line and join his defense team, Dave!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  112. I don’t get it.
    Prefacing some tweets by saying you are not comparing Trump to Hitler and if anyone does say that, they are a liar, seems overly defensive. When people are overly defensive about using Hitler they are either trying to distract from the truth, or they are paranoid about using Hitler as a foil.

    On a scale of Hitler being one extreme abuse of power and the Lincoln (who suspended Habeus Corpus) the other where does Trump fall?

    steveg (354706)

  113. Oh, come on! Like Trump could ever grow a moustache.

    There’s the biggest clue that Patterico was being tongue-in-cheek right there.

    nk (dbc370)

  114. On a scale of Hitler being one extreme abuse of power and the Lincoln (who suspended Habeas Corpus) the other where does Trump fall?

    Somewhere between Liberace and Ru Paul.

    nk (dbc370)

  115. Patterico’s post is a good one.

    I wouldn’t call it his best work, and he left out one of the most imbecilic justifications of the people who put Hitler in power, which is occasionally advanced today by the delusional in regard to Trump: “To neuter the conservative movement.”

    “We’ve hired him for our act,” former Chancellor Franz von Papen crowed to his equally naive allies after putting Hitler in charge. Von Papen would later see his friends murdered by the SS on the Night of the Long Knives, and came close to assassination by his “hireling” more than once.

    Of course, it took twelve years and tens of millions of innocent dead, but the German conservative movements *was* eventually neutered.

    Dave (050ab0)

  116. Dave (050ab0) — 12/4/2019 @ 6:19 pm

    We don’t hire presidents, Dave, nor do we appoint them.

    Hitler came to power in a manner that #NeverTrump seems to find more appealing than leaving things to a “terrible” electorate.

    Munroe (f62389)

  117. BTW, Patterico, find your last ‘tweet’ to be the ‘funniest’- in the dark humor sort of way.

    ________

    @112. It’s become an umbrella term- the ‘figurative’ vs., the ‘literal.’ Buckeye Woody Hayes was a ‘Hitler’… Louis B. Mayer and George Steinbrenner, too.

    DeGaulle was more a Mussolini. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  118. @115. Dave, you know what the difference is between a loser and a sore loser?

    Nothing.

    Welcome to 1964.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  119. We don’t hire presidents

    Yes, we do. For a four year contract subject to good behavior, and an option to renew once for a second four year contract.

    Kishnevi (15a549)

  120. Red, Gray, and black, Hayes a coach and Steinbrenner an alum…no wonder Dave has an aversion. Not to mention the ultimate hack Jim Jordan. I guess that makes me a benign one.

    urbanleftbehind (9f2e0c)

  121. 63 million Americans freely voted for Trump, Dave; warts, fibs, flaws, mistresses and all.

    Funny though, never thought of the National Review as a ‘concentration camp.’

    But it works.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  122. No, they voted for his promises, of which he is incapable of delivering on through his mendacity, incompetence, and narcissism.

    Kishnevi (15a549)

  123. Yes. Perhaps because he knew Obama cared about such things. It seems Trump doesn’t really care that Trudy and his gf’s think about him.

    Oh he doesn’t care. Above the fray. Presidential, even!

    Trump calls Trudeau ‘two-faced’, cancels press conference and leaves Nato summit early after video of world leaders making fun of him

    Donald Trump has reacted furiously to footage of world leaders apparently making fun of him, calling Justin Trudeau “two-faced” then cancelling a press conference and cutting short his attendance at a Nato summit.

    The US president was asked whether he had seen the clip in which his international counterparts appeared to joke about his explosive press conference with Emmanuel Macron, and his erratic diplomatic style, at Tuesday night’s Buckingham Palace reception.

    “You just watched his team’s jaws drop to the floor!” Mr Trudeau apparently said of Mr Trump while speaking with Boris Johnson, Mr Macron, Mark Rutte and Princess Anne.

    “Well, he’s two-faced,” Mr Trump said of the Canadian prime minister when questioned on Wednesday afternoon, and suggested the unguarded comments were based in frustration at US demands that Canada contribute more to Nato.

    Speaking alongside Angela Merkel on Wednesday, Mr Trump added: ”Honestly, with Trudeau he’s a nice guy, I find him to be a very nice guy.

    What an embarassing man.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  124. 63 million Americans freely voted for Trump, Dave; warts, fibs, flaws, mistresses and all.

    Funny though, never thought of the National Review as a ‘concentration camp.’

    But it works.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 12/4/2019 @ 6:42 pm

    66 million freely voted against him. And of course those same voters came back to vote in a House that opposed Trump.

    If this were strictly a matter of who millions of Americans freely voted for, Trump would just be Jerry Springer on Twitter.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  125. Hitler came to power in a manner that #NeverTrump seems to find more appealing than leaving things to a “terrible” electorate.

    Munroe (f62389) — 12/4/2019 @ 6:28 pm

    You keep saying you are defending the voters, but they didn’t want Trump. They rejected him even if that meant Hillary. Even a terrible leader is better than Trump, the majority of your electorate said. They said it again when they voted in a House of democrats.

    You keep pretending impeachment is against the voters when it’s actually the only voice the voters have. Especially since Russia+Trump colluded to cheat again.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  126. @124. 66 million; yes, and they still lost. Putin can tell you it’s hard to sell America around the world when the winner keeps losing. 😉

    See, he always wins. Big.

    But voted against Trump? Or for Hillary? There is a difference. Regardless, from my POV, can’t lose!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  127. ”They rejected him even if that meant Hillary. Even a terrible leader is better than Trump, the majority of your electorate said. They said it again when they voted in a House of democrats.”
    Dustin (cafb36) — 12/4/2019 @ 7:02 pm

    I know you don’t actually believe this.

    If you did, you’d leave it to the electorate in eleven months.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  128. I dunno about anyone else, but I sure don’t like what I hear about this Hitler fella. But it takes a brave man to criticize him.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  129. I think we can all agree that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, who doesn’t think ADOLF HITLER was 100% EVIL in EVERYTHING, is probably a NAZI.

    Do you like Dogs? Because you know who else liked Dogs?

    Hitler!!!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  130. The electorate will be entirely free to elect the GOP nominee in November, whoever that nominee is.

    Kishnevi (15a549)

  131. Trump only PRETENDS to dislike dogs. Because he’s trying to hide that he’s a Nazi. JUST LIKE HITLER.

    But we’ve found him out. We’re clever.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  132. I don’t get it.

    No. You don’t.

    Prefacing some tweets by saying you are not comparing Trump to Hitler and if anyone does say that, they are a liar, seems overly defensive. When people are overly defensive about using Hitler they are either trying to distract from the truth, or they are paranoid about using Hitler as a foil.

    Ooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrr …. or they know exactly the dishonest ways people will distort their post, and pre-empt it so that the distortion is recognized for what it is, by every rational person who can read English.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  133. Trump only PRETENDS to dislike dogs. Because he’s trying to hide that he’s a Nazi. JUST LIKE HITLER.

    But we’ve found him out. We’re clever.

    Precisely the sort of dishonest distortion I identified in the post as lies coming from liars.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  134. Are you explaining why it was defensible to support Hitler

    Given the conditions that existed in Germany, 1933 — conditions that I hope and pray no one here ever experiences — and the regular politicians who wrung their hands and popped off to their Junker estates … supporting the ONLY guy who had a clue and wasn’t a tool of Stalin doesn’t seem so unreasonable. Anyone who doubts this is utterly ignorant of the conditions that made Hitler seem like the better choice.

    Or do you argue that falling into Stalin’s grasp was a better fate?

    Perhaps one could simply accept rather than support — and I suspect that a great many Germans did just that as time went on. And what a lot of Republicans due wrt Trump, despite some who would argue that if you don’t denounce him at every opportunity, you’re complicit.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  135. If I may say so, expecting Trump superfans to overcome their Pavlovian conditioning and appreciate subtle distinctions in argumentation seems like a triumph of optimism over experience…

    Dave (1bb933)

  136. Trump did not just happen.

    He was able to destroy the best candidates of both parties because of several decades of drift and can-kicking. Enough people were finally hurting bad enough, or afraid, or just fed up with all the lies that they accepted Trump’s demagoguery.

    A democracy/republic of our sort does not allow BS to rule forever. Eventually the people will choose to replace it with other leaders. That Trump was the only one willing to pick up that banner reflects poorly on those who might have done, but didn’t.

    People complain about populism but it and democracy are not opposites. Populism is what happens when the people who would MUCH rather spend their time at the hairdressers or watching football find themselves force to take an interest in politics.

    The failure is that of the prior leadership. Pointing fingers at Trump is displaced anger.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  137. @135. Hitler would call it ‘Triumph of The Will.’ 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  138. supporting the ONLY guy who had a clue and wasn’t a tool of Stalin

    From what I am reading now, there were actually several such men. The right wing chose Hitler, but the centrists had a few possibilities.

    There are important differences between the modern USA and Germany c 1930, most notably the implosion of the Second Reich and the revolutions/counter revolutions that followed the end of WWI, and the failure of the Weimar Republic to establish itself as the legitimate government in the eyes of many Germans.

    Kishnevi (15a549)

  139. @136. That’s a reasonable assessment, K.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  140. I’ve always suspected zumzing wrong vit a man who does not drink or shmoke.

    nk (dbc370)

  141. Given the conditions that existed in Germany, 1933 — conditions that I hope and pray no one here ever experiences — and the regular politicians who wrung their hands and popped off to their Junker estates … supporting the ONLY guy who had a clue and wasn’t a tool of Stalin doesn’t seem so unreasonable. Anyone who doubts this is utterly ignorant of the conditions that made Hitler seem like the better choice.

    I doubt it only in the sense of questioning the premises, which hindsight makes much easier to do.

    The Nazis reached their electoral zenith with the July 1932 election, more than doubling their number of seats and becoming the largest party in the Reichstag (although nowhere close to a majority) but Hitler refused to share power. The resulting impossibility of forming a stable government led to a second election in November, in which the Nazis lost significant ground (they went from 230 seats to 196). There were serious doubts in the party about Hitler’s strategy, and the Nazis were out of money.

    Further, by the start of 1933, the German economy was already starting to show signs of recovery. A large public works program had been already been approved, and would have provided stimulus to the economy even without Hitler’s additional programs. The start of the Great Depression was what changed the Nazis from a lunatic fringe party into one with mass support; the end of the Great Depression would have likely marginalized them again.

    The perception that the Nazis were in decline contributed to the establishment’s tragic decision to try to co-opt them, and Hitler accepted what, on the face of it, was a very bad deal considering he still controlled 1/3 of the seats in the Reichstag (only one other cabinet position besides Chancellor went to the Nazis, but it was the all-important Interior Ministry in charge of the police).

    Or do you argue that falling into Stalin’s grasp was a better fate?

    Stalin was no threat to anybody but his own people in 1933.

    I would say rather that the scope of Hitler’s evil intentions was far from clear in 1933. It’s true the Nazis preached anti-Semitism and engaged in street violence, but they were far from unique in that regard. In some ways its surprising that despite their organization, Hitler’s charisma and the prevailing atmosphere of crisis, they never won *more* than 37% of the vote in a fair election.

    Dave (1bb933)

  142. Or do you argue that falling into Stalin’s grasp was a better fate?

    This is the very argument I can hear Trump supporters making in defense of a Hitler figure.

    Perhaps one could simply accept rather than support — and I suspect that a great many Germans did just that as time went on. And what a lot of Republicans due wrt Trump, despite some who would argue that if you don’t denounce him at every opportunity, you’re complicit.

    I would also argue that if you lived in Nazi Germany and didn’t oppose Hitler, you were complicit. I actually thought this was a pretty common belief, yet you seem upset at me for saying it about Trump, even as you yourself analogize the two situations to each other.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  143. @136. I think you make some good points, and I often think in term of Trump as a collective failure. He’s a reaction to failed leadership of both parties. From a Dem perspective, they didn’t get the troops out to vote. They nominated a crappy candidate. I’m not one of these “not my President” types. Sadly, he is my President and I bear some complicity.

    I do feel some sadness at what I see as a squandered opportunity. To lead, to build a coalition, to unify, to inspire. These are things a President should aspire to. Trump has never tried to reach outside his base. Maybe he didn’t think he needed to. And I feel some dismay at what I see as increased incivility (yes on both sides, but the man at the top bears a lot of responsibility for the current tone). Also executive powers and privileges abused to an unprecedented level.

    Things are going to be different post Trump. Maybe in some good ways but I think in many bad.

    JRH (52aed3)

  144. Patterico,

    This post was funny, and I liked it. But I have a low opinion of Trump so it’s easy for me.

    I think engaging with this post requires a lot from Trump supporters. Hitler’s atrocities evoke a visceral reaction in most people. Trump has been compared to Hitler by political opponents. This has been exaggerated by some in the right wing media into ‘all trump critics think Trump is like Hitler.” And “All of Trump’s opponents think all of his supporters are Nazis and they think you’re a Nazi.” So, if I try to show empathy to one of Trump’s angrier supporters on here I can see how it would be hard for them to believe you were sincere when you said you weren’t comparing Trump to Hitler. This is especially true when grievance about being respected is very much part of the Trump brand.

    Analogies are a great way to get a point across, so I’ll use one. 😉

    I’ve been lurking for a long time and I remember a post you did about using the phrase ‘Here Boy’ to call a dog in from a field when there was a black man standing by the dog. (Was a great post btw) My take was that unless the black man had reason to give you the benefit of the doubt even if you made clear you were calling the dog there was a chance they would be offended. If the black man already felt you didn’t like or respect black people there’s a good chance he might conclude you really were trying to insult him, in addition to calling the dog. If the black man is Al Sharpton they will certainly express offence.
    In this analogy RC is Al Sharpton and borer lawyer might be the man who already felt you didn’t like or respect them.

    Also, NK’s comment still makes me chuckle.

    Time123 (36651d) — 12/4/2019 @ 1:58 pm

    This was the most interesting post in this thread and I’m shocked that no one has responded to it.

    I can see many Trump supporters feeling personally maligned because of how they are constantly insulted through the media and on this website. So it makes sense to look at their perspective and see if they have a point. Or you can call them babies. Your choice.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  145. I know you don’t actually believe this.

    If you did, you’d leave it to the electorate in eleven months.

    Munroe (dd6b64) — 12/4/2019 @ 7:10 pm

    I don’t believe that the Democrats have the house or I don’t believe that Trump never won a majority of votes? What?

    Why would you leave a matter centered around manipulating our elections to the next election? This sounds like something one of those South American dictatorships would say.

    Of course, if this were a democrat cheating at elections you would flip flop. That’s why you guys hate conservative Trump critics. The integrity makes you feel bad.

    Dustin (cafb36)

  146. ‘Complicity’ didn’t stop at der border.

    See #85.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  147. Re#54
    No, I don’t think our human nature differs. Mind you, support for Hitler fluctuated, of course, increasing with his initial successes re remilitarizing the Rhineland, Anschluss, the Sudetenland etc. The 1939 war (beginning with the invasion of Poland) decreased such support, and the 1941 Operation Barbarossa, the Allied bombing, and other military defeats decreased it even more.

    However, if Trump announced his intention to seize the land of his neighbors (it being American), expel or imprison a religious minority in concentration camps (the Holocaust was not openly advocated), eviscerate Congress and the courts and institute a personal dictatorship, I believe few Americans would support him. You say a scary number would. What do you think this scary number is? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Tens of millions?

    Golden Eagle (f35a5d)

  148. Meh. Trump would buy Greenland; der Fuehrer would steal it. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  149. This was the most interesting post in this thread and I’m shocked that no one has responded to it.

    Agree and was going to mention it as well. I don’t have much time to state this cleanly enough but here goes…As I stated in my first comment here:

    4. You really worked hard at this, didn’t you? Good job.

    I saw where P was going with this and was waiting for someone to pick up on it. Time123 mostly did. What is most annoying about this post is its little magic trick kind of game. Set up a puzzle with a big gotcha in it, use a little misdirection, and then strut around like a peacock when people miss the gotcha part. But here’s the gotcha that’s missed as well. Let’s look at the dictionary (Webster) definition of a lie:

    lie verb (2)
    1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
    She was lying when she said she didn’t break the vase.
    He lied about his past experience.
    2 : to create a false or misleading impression
    Statistics sometimes lie.
    The mirror never lies.
    transitive verb

    : to bring about by telling lies
    He lied his way out of trouble.
    lie noun (2)

    1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
    He told a lie to avoid punishment.
    b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
    the lies we tell ourselves to feel better
    historical records containing numerous lies
    2 : something that misleads or deceives
    His show of remorse was a lie.
    3 : a charge of lying (see LIE entry 3)

    Meh…got tired of bolding…might as well bold the whole thing. My point is that nowhere in here does a lie describe someone who misunderstands what was said. For people to not catch on the P’s little gotcha game where while he didn’t compare T to H, he did compare T supporters to H supporters…or some such. God forbid that I should in some subtle way misread whatever was going on in P’s head when he conceived this. But to my point, getting an answer wrong on a test does not make one a liar. Misleading without the intent to mislead does not make one a liar. However “to create a false or misleading impression” definitely does. And I’ll leave the predestination aspect of the OP to the Calvinists.

    Now who is the real liar?

    PTw (894877)

  150. NJRob and PTw, First, thank you for the kind words on my comment. Second, I apologize in advance if I don’t word this well. I’m also in the pressed for time club.

    Context matters. Patterico has a clear disdain for trump and those of his supporters who are disingenuous in their support and mostly make arguments in the forms he’s outlined in the original post. Patterico is *also* a fanatic when it comes to honesty and accuracy and has no history of conflating political conservatives with Nazis. He has years of history focusing on honesty and accuracy. YMMV but looking at his history in totality I’ll believe him when he makes a statement about his intent.

    I’ll also point out that so far as I saw neither of you has said something like “It’s hurtful and insulting to be compared to a Nazi and too many people have called me a Nazi sincerely for me to laugh when you do it as a joke. Regardless of your point I just can’t get past that. Also, you seem to agree with a lot of those people about Trump and his supporters so I’m having a hard time believing your sincerity.”

    To go back to my analogy, I saw multiple black writers make exactly that point about being compared to apes, or to being offended when Obama was compared to Curious George.

    Final Point, Even accepting that any use of comparisons to Hitler are fraught there are some trump supporters that have used some of these exact formulations to defend the actions of people that are avowed Neo-Nazi. Go back and look at threads about Charlottesville if you don’t believe me. You will find comments that boil down to Whatabout Antifa and Why are you criticizing Trump here, Hilary was worse or you’re only making a big deal about this because you hate Trump. Given that, I don’t think this joke is any more beyond the pale than Bernnie/Stalin jokes are. Even though I sincerely doubt Bernie would engage in Stalinist Purges and Genocide. But, humor is a relative thing, I like mean jokes, and I don’t feel much affiliation to the people he’s mocking. So YMMV

    Time123 (80b471)

  151. You said

    I would also argue that if you lived in Nazi Germany and didn’t oppose Hitler, you were complicit.

    Did you mean: “I would also argue that if you live in the US and didn’t oppose the alt right/neo-nazi, you are complicit.”?

    Time123 (80b471)

  152. #149 —

    Our host compared many types of Trump supporters to Hitler supporters. I don’t think he was unclear about it, and removed any possible doubt at #54. While the difference is subtle, it’s real.

    That said, if I were a person that had just been analogized to a person who supported Hitler in Germany back in the 30s, I would likely deny the analogy, and maybe get pretty heated about it. And I think a response that Trump isn’t Hitler is a fair response to that kind of argument.

    If our host believed that this posting would cause our Trump supporting contingent to take stock and say “this is what would cause me to not support Trump anymore”, and explain that to everyone, it was doomed to failure. If he was trying to see certain posters tie themselves in knots on this — well, they actually really haven’t. (People like #147 actually engaged the core argument rather well).

    Now, if our host was just indulging himself in a little satire for his amusement — he did a pretty good job. My guess is that we really should not read any more into this than that.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  153. Patterico (2019) —

    A: I’m actually warming up to this Hitler guy.
    B: He will end up being one of the worst mass murderers in history.
    A: Whatabout Stalin? He’s worse. Look: all politicians are bad

    HL Mencken (1936)

    “You protest, and with justice, each time Hitler jails an opponent; but you forget that Stalin and company have jailed and murdered a thousand times as many. It seems to me, and indeed the evidence is plain, that compared to the Moscow brigands and assassins, Hitler is hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer and Mussolini almost a philanthropist. [In an open letter to Upton Sinclair, printed in The American Mercury, June 1936]

    Appalled (1a17de)

  154. @153 That quote pre-dates the holocaust.

    Time123 (80b471)

  155. Our host compared many types of Trump supporters to Hitler supporters. I don’t think he was unclear about it, and removed any possible doubt at #54. While the difference is subtle, it’s real.

    The point in comment 54 was that many Germans went along with Hitler and that given Human nature it’s likely that something similar could happen here.

    Time123 (80b471)

  156. A question if I may.

    Why doesn’t Patterico compare Trump’s supporters to Stalin’s supporters? Incidentally, Stalin had a lot of admirers in the United States.

    DN (7ea7fc)

  157. 156. So did Hitler. A fair question, but I’ll let Pat answer that one for himself.

    Gryph (08c844)

  158. #155 —

    Patterico says

    For sure, many people who support Trump would not support him if he started acting like Hitler, and I certainly do not say every Trump supporter would. That said, a scary number would.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  159. I believe Jesus said, “For ye have the scary number with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them harm: but me ye have not always.”

    Going from memory, I may have that wrong though. The scary number of any ideology always exists. Even amongst those who (effectively) chose Stalin over Hitler, which when forced to choose of course Stalin was the right one. Some say though that if you simply sat that one out, refused to choose Stalin over Hitler, if you didn’t oppose Hitler getting into power, you were complicit. I actually thought this was a pretty common belief, yet some people might get upset at me for saying it.

    PTw (894877)

  160. So, the point of this exercise was to hate on Trump supporters? Congrats? Since it is entirely predicated on presumption – what some (size of group unspecified) unidentified Trump supporters would do (not did do) in a context that will never happen – it’s not something that can be falsified. It’s just a fact-less expression of animus towards a group by sullying them with a unfalsifiable claim bout what some non-specified number of their group would do, in this case that group is Trump supporters / people who defend the president, and what some of them ‘would do’ is defend Hitler. These are the kind of self-reinforcing arguments that reinforce in-group, out-group biases. They work precisely because they are of the form of “you would do X if…” It operates entirely on presumption. And it is presumption of bad faith.

    This is why ad hominem is logically fallacious, and this sort of ad hominem is actually worse than ad hominem tu quoqque. At least with tu quoque, there are *past* actions by real, identified persons which at least can be assessed for factual accuracy, even if they are fundamentally irrelevant to whatever argument / claim is being made. But ad hominem directed at future actions in some hypothetical, those cannot even be disputed as factually inaccurate. And by further not even identifying specific individuals (or specific examples from a defined group) who ‘would’ do this, it is further insulated from any assessment / critique. One can’t even make an argument of the kind: “Hey, I know Dave – Dave would not defend Hitler’ – because Dave wasn’t identified. Dave is simply smeared, by virtue of being in the group of people which includes some people who would do this. And we know they would do this because we know.
    Which is a feature, not a bug, when you’re reinforcing biases. D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (d83d3a)

  161. However, if Trump announced his intention to seize the land of his neighbors (it being American), expel or imprison a religious minority in concentration camps (the Holocaust was not openly advocated), eviscerate Congress and the courts and institute a personal dictatorship, I believe few Americans would support him. You say a scary number would. What do you think this scary number is? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Tens of millions?

    If he randomly did that today, in today’s context, just a few thousand, which is basically nobody. The right circumstances would have to apply. Major economic dislocation plus terrorism of sufficient scale could easily set the stage for millions to support exactly what you describe.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  162. I can see many Trump supporters feeling personally maligned because of how they are constantly insulted through the media and on this website.

    I don’t insult the ones who disdain him but see him as a necessity because the trade-offs involved in supporting a Democrat are too much to bear.

    I insult the ones who use disingenuous arguments to minimize his corruption, nastiness, and evil.

    Politics being what it is, far too many slip from the former into the latter. You gotta support your guy, and that leads to exaggerating the other side’s misdeeds and turning a blind eye to your own side’s.

    I no longer have a “side” so I turn a blind eye to nothing. That annoys a lotta people. So be it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  163. Patterico —

    A: What are you going to do, vote for the Commies?
    B: I’m concerned with Hitler’s plans to murder the Jews.
    A: Look, we all roll our eyes at the Jew-hating stuff, but that’s just words. You have to look at what Hitler does, not what he says. Take him seriously but not literally.

    New York Times (first profile of Hitler — dating from 1922)

    But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

    A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: “You can’t expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.”

    (Source — https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1922-new-york-times-hitler/#)

    Appalled (152ae2)

  164. So, the point of this exercise was to hate on Trump supporters?

    Not to “hate on” and not all Trump supporters. It’s a caution to the more cultlike ones.

    Since it is entirely predicated on presumption – what some (size of group unspecified) unidentified Trump supporters would do (not did do) in a context that will never happen – it’s not something that can be falsified.

    It’s dependent on knowledge of history and a belief that human nature does not change.

    This is why ad hominem is logically fallacious, and this sort of ad hominem is actually worse than ad hominem tu quoqque. At least with tu quoque, there are *past* actions by real, identified persons which at least can be assessed for factual accuracy, even if they are fundamentally irrelevant to whatever argument / claim is being made. But ad hominem directed at future actions in some hypothetical, those cannot even be disputed as factually inaccurate. And by further not even identifying specific individuals (or specific examples from a defined group) who ‘would’ do this, it is further insulated from any assessment / critique. One can’t even make an argument of the kind: “Hey, I know Dave – Dave would not defend Hitler’ – because Dave wasn’t identified. Dave is simply smeared, by virtue of being in the group of people which includes some people who would do this. And we know they would do this because we know.

    Nothing in the post is “ad hominem.” What position am I attacking by attacking the character of the messenger? None. Not every personal insult is the ad hominem fallacy.

    I have explained my intent here clearly. It’s all in the comments above. You can choose to read and understand or not. I can’t make you do anything.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  165. A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: “You can’t expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them.”

    Ah, the Scott Adams of 1922, fluffing that era’s moral monsters by labeling them Master Persuaders.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  166. @164 – assessment of the arguments you parrot in your tweets is almost entirely dependent on the weight being placed on the scales – weight determined by the individuals and actions referenced. Now, some of the arguments you give us are fallacious, and I question whether they represent the views of some substantial segment of Trump supporters – they strike me more as straw men – caricatures of the arguments of some Trump defenders. For example, while folks may count in Trump’s favor the bad treatment he gets in the media, I haven’t heard anyone argue that Trump doing bad things is OK because of it, let alone that they support him because of it.

    We do get arguments from Trump defenders in the form of “Yeah, that thing Trump did was bad, but I support him anyway because of…” But for the most part, whether or not these arguments are defensible is dependent on what the thing was.

    Is it OK to express support for a flawed leader despite those flaws? Well, it depends on the flaws. If the flaws are bad tweets, perhaps. If the flaws are killing 6 million Jews, of course not. Is it OK to decide to support a leader because the alternatives are worse? Depends on the leader and the alternatives.

    The work being done here is almost entirely in the values assigned to the persons and actions – not the structure of the argumentation.

    Or to put it another way, if we have argumentation of the form “I support X, despite him being bad on Y, because even taking into account Y, X is better than Z, the alternative to Z” – how reasonable that is depends entirely on who and what X, Y, and Z are.

    D.GOOCH

    GOOCH (d83d3a)

  167. Ah, the Scott Adams of 1922

    This pretty much equates Scott Adams with a Hitler apologist and it is hard to see the lack of the Trump/Hitler comparison here.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  168. The right circumstances would have to apply. Major economic dislocation plus terrorism of sufficient scale could easily set the stage for millions to support exactly what you describe.

    Added to that would have to be a feckless political class that called it “the new normal.” You only get extreme solutions when they are the only solutions offered. In Germany’s case the choices were Hitler or Soviet Communism, equally extreme.

    And, to be fair, Hitler’s first few years brought prosperity to Germany, which was a far cry from 1933.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  169. I actually thought this was a pretty common belief, yet you seem upset at me for saying it about Trump, even as you yourself analogize the two situations to each other.

    I don’t believe the two situations are similar, and therefore I find your demands for denunciation less compelling.

    I think that the situation in the US, in 2016 or now, is far less dire than what faced Germans in 1933. Considering what the response to the Depression was in the US, and FDR’s autocratic rule, you’d be closer to similarity if you attacked those Americans who “went along” with the NIRA and similar FDR schemes.

    But, let Trump be impeached and/or replaced by a senile party hack like Biden, or a Marxist like Warren, and you might see those conditions begin to appear. And I suspect it would happen long before wheelbarrows of money bought a loaf of bread. Sadly, Der Leader would more likely be on the Left than the Right.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  170. Oh, and Trump is not Hitler. But I think that was agreed on at the start.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  171. This is the very argument I can hear Trump supporters making in defense of a Hitler figure.

    Jeebus, but do you really think that having to choose between Hitler or Stalin is the place to make one’s principled stand? The time for that is long past. Which is why I blame those that let things drift so far that Trump seemed a reasonable choice to so many.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  172. Or who will let things drift further so that AOC looks like a good choice.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  173. Well, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from reading this thread, it’s that many people handle analogies with the same deftness and sensitivity that William Hung brought to his lyrical interpretations.

    I can’t wait to see how that gets misinterpreted…

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  174. I’ll also point out that so far as I saw neither of you has said something like “It’s hurtful and insulting to be compared to a Nazi and too many people have called me a Nazi sincerely for me to laugh when you do it as a joke. Regardless of your point I just can’t get past that. Also, you seem to agree with a lot of those people about Trump and his supporters so I’m having a hard time believing your sincerity.”

    To go back to my analogy, I saw multiple black writers make exactly that point about being compared to apes, or to being offended when Obama was compared to Curious George.

    Final Point, Even accepting that any use of comparisons to Hitler are fraught there are some trump supporters that have used some of these exact formulations to defend the actions of people that are avowed Neo-Nazi. Go back and look at threads about Charlottesville if you don’t believe me. You will find comments that boil down to Whatabout Antifa and Why are you criticizing Trump here, Hilary was worse or you’re only making a big deal about this because you hate Trump. Given that, I don’t think this joke is any more beyond the pale than Bernnie/Stalin jokes are. Even though I sincerely doubt Bernie would engage in Stalinist Purges and Genocide. But, humor is a relative thing, I like mean jokes, and I don’t feel much affiliation to the people he’s mocking. So YMMV

    Time123 (80b471) — 12/5/2019 @ 6:29 am

    I wouldn’t say that because that would be gaslighting and trying to allow emotions to rule the debate.

    As for the original post, it doesn’t matter to me. I know Patterico hates Trump much as AP hates Trump and that colors his posts. I do my best to ignore it and try and glean useful information as Patterico has built up years of goodwill here. I hope when Trump is no longer President in 2024 this age will pass. I think seeing the farcical impeachment hearings should be instructive for all.

    As for the bigots that choose to support an party, they do so because they believe it is in their interests to do so. Look at the racist remark from Rep Al Green who complained that the leftists who testified yesterday was a racist act because one of them wasn’t a minority. That’s what we are reduced to in this day and age.

    NJRob (4d595c)

  175. @169. You know who is salivating over the prospects of exploit “those conditions?”

    Bloomberg.

    Watch him.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  176. I wouldn’t say that because that would be gaslighting and trying to allow emotions to rule the debate.

    Gaslighting is defined as manipulating someone to try and make them doubt their own sanity. If you mean something else I’m not getting it.

    Any person who thinks that their emotional response has no bearing on how the analyze data is fooling themselves, or has a brain that is very different from most peoples. I’ve know people like that. They’re very different.

    So there’s nothing inherently wrong with having an emotional response. If you want to have a conversation around the age of consent and create an example around someone’s 9 year old daughter it’s reasonable to expect their reaction will be more passionate. I wouldn’t think less of someone that says “this example offends me because…” I think refusing to do that often leads to those feelings coming out in indirectly.

    Time123 (80b471)

  177. When others campaign for Reagan dimes, Reagan airports, Reagan highways, Reagan sewage plans and clamor for his mug on Mt. Rushmore, etc., etc., – that’s indicative of a “cult.” A fella who has to sell his own name to put on buildings, steaks, spirits, casinos, board games and golf courses as an income stream- not so much.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  178. Jeebus, but do you really think that having to choose between Hitler or Stalin is the place to make one’s principled stand?

    I don’t understand why you keep suggesting that there was some kind of binary choice between Nazis and Communists in 1930’s Germany. Both extremist parties hammered on that idea, which should tell you how credible it is.

    There was no chance of the communists (KPD) seizing power by force and no chance of gaining it through the ballot. It was Stalin’s brilliant policy at that time that the center-left parties across Europe, like the Social Democrats in Germany, were the real enemy. Unlike the Nazis, who were able to work with other nationalists to accomplish their aims, the MPD was completely isolated (and that made it easy for the Nazis to completely eliminate them as a political force in a matter of days once the order was given).

    Dave (050ab0)

  179. @161

    If he randomly did that today, in today’s context, just a few thousand, which is basically nobody. The right circumstances would have to apply. Major economic dislocation plus terrorism of sufficient scale could easily set the stage for millions to support exactly what you describe.

    The right circumstances you describe are independent of Trump and in no way limited to Trump supporters. This is a function of human nature. It’s a common misconception that the evil of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. is limited to and emanates from those specific individuals. That evil is always there. The science-fiction trope of going back in time to kill Hitler before WWII makes for fun stories but that’s about it.

    frosty (f27e97)

  180. @174 I hope when Trump is no longer President in 2024 this age will pass.

    The next age will be worse than this one to the degree that pre-2016 will seem like a fairytale and we could only wish for a return to the in-between years.

    frosty (f27e97)

  181. @161. “Major economic dislocation”… “terrorism of sufficient scale” — you know who successfully exploited a similar situation, albeit in a much smaller petri dish…

    Bloomberg.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  182. Get real, DC, Bloomberg would need to create a droid army or introduce a pathogen into a red state staple product, ….Bernie at least has flesh and blood crazies willing to fight.

    urbanleftbehind (2c4db4)

  183. @183. What flag does he march to this month– red, blue… or white? 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  184. Support the Vet?!?!:

    ‘Corporal Hitler took part in 48 engagement, won the German Iron Cross [first class], as wounded once and gassed once, was in a hospital when the Armistice of 1918 was signed… what Adolf Hitler & Co., did to Germany in less than six years was applauded wildly and ecstatically by most Germans. He lifted the nation from post-War defeatism. ‘ – source, Adolf Hitler, TIME 1938 Man of the Year issue.

    http://contenttime.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,760539-1,00,html

    OTOH, Donald Trump battled bone spurs.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  185. NJRob (4d595c) — 12/4/2019 @ 9:55 pm

    I concur.

    felipe (023cc9)

  186. Gaslighting is defined as manipulating someone to try and make them doubt their own sanity. If you mean something else I’m not getting it.

    Any person who thinks that their emotional response has no bearing on how the analyze data is fooling themselves, or has a brain that is very different from most peoples. I’ve know people like that. They’re very different.

    So there’s nothing inherently wrong with having an emotional response. If you want to have a conversation around the age of consent and create an example around someone’s 9 year old daughter it’s reasonable to expect their reaction will be more passionate. I wouldn’t think less of someone that says “this example offends me because…” I think refusing to do that often leads to those feelings coming out in indirectly.

    Time123 (80b471) — 12/5/2019 @ 12:25 pm

    I use the term in the context of not trying to manipulate people to make them change how they act.

    NJRob (4d595c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6991 secs.