You keep calling for a military coup, but historically those don't tend to end well.
We've never had a POTUS declare himself to be a nazi before. And by the legal standard of the oath, it wouldn't be a coup. It would be upholding those terms.
I have no words anymore. I seriously don't...
I am actually seeing this shit in my lifetime.
I am actually seeing this shit in my lifetime.
But blatant sedition is a serious crime, and we value our autonomy.
Oh.Looking for to the new Wolfenstein game? I sure am.
Oh.
Someone please needs to reskin Wolfenstein to have the enemies carrying tiki torches, and the minigun guy be orange.
--Patrick
I just realized that reports say most of the White Supremacists that showed up were dressed in white polo shirts and khakis.
Take some fucking responsibility you damn clown. Is this really the symbol you want left behind by your fucking brand you cherish so much?
Take some fucking responsibility you damn clown. Is this really the symbol you want left behind by your fucking brand you cherish so much?
Resignation, or Suicide? Just askin'
For others, that means "why not both?" And that would be because Frank said this:
ONE thing. So can't be both according to Frank. Ask him. Maybe he misspoke.
People tend to forget that that 1939 wasn't that far off from the time when world powers where still committing not-genocide-but-close-enough in Africa and other places. Hell, even the term concentration camp comes from there. Oh, and let's not forget how Dubya grandfather was one of the guys that was allegedly feeling around to see how people felt about replacing Roosvelt with a fascist regime.
Something like this not happening during your lifetime would be the less likely thing imo.
Human be wack, yo....[DOUBLEPOST=1502889248,1502889201][/DOUBLEPOST]
Maybe he's talking about resignation through suicide....
Not quite accurate. From Internment on wikipedia:
Other parts agree with you they were used in the Boer War (no doubt the African conflict you're referring to that you assert the term comes from) but that article even cites it being used in the USA in the 1830s. And in one of the Hardcore History accounts about the Ten Years' War mentioned above, it talks about how according to the Spanish, they brought in a guy experienced with making camps and such, so it was more "established" in a number of places by then.
So 1800s (under that general term/name), but not first done in the Boer War (1899-1902) either. The concept was 100 years old (at least) by the time Hitler started doing it.
Here's my own guessing: before that, conquerors didn't intern people, they just enslaved them. The 1800s was the beginning of when slavery was no longer widespread and accepted, hence the birth of Internment (Concentration, reconcentration, whatever term that all basically mean the same things) camps. That's a guess (I'm not a historian, so Wild Guessing is OK since I have no credentials on the line for it), but the timing lines up well enough IMO.
I love being wrong in ways that further prove my point.[DOUBLEPOST=1502890496,1502890181][/DOUBLEPOST]
That's The Holy Roman Empire to you, baka...
People confuse a lot of things. Hitler was far from the first to have work camps/internment camps, what was special about the Nazis were the destruction camps, or death camps. There's a very big difference between the two. Some work camps were later converted to death camps, but they served different purposes. I had a grandfather who went from one (Dachau) to the other (Treblinka). It was the industrialisation of death, camps with the goal of simply killing as much and as efficiently as possible, that was special about the Nazis, not camps with forced labor, which were used pretty much all over for decades/centuries.
Its only joke. Why you heff to be mad?
Agreed. Death Camps is a much better label IMO for those in particular, not that there was a particular LACK of death in Internment camps either (usually brutal conditions), but it wasn't their "actual purpose" like the Nazi ones were.
Poe's law is in effect. Wasn't mad. I still want @Frank to tell us what he meant, but he doesn't appear to want to.
Nah, you assumed that because you're you... an honest mistake, really.
Well, when we're talking "average european religious person", it kind of does both, since that's how averaging the whole population works, you got to use the objective parts to do it.
Especially since some where clearly intensely deist, which wasn't exactly common.
So you're saying that there are actual people who qualify as part of the groups being called "nazis" and "racists" by what passes for the left in the US, that actually vote for the Dems?You keep forgetting that there's always a third option in the election - no, not the libertarians (I wish), I mean not voting. Just as harmful to the Democrats is not just those who vote R, but those who had been considering voting D then deciding "well fuck those guys too" and not voting.
And you really think those moderate stayed home because of the calls of racism more then because of the e-mails? You know, the ones the Trumpets where screaming about way more then being called racist?
Well, you could explain what changed, but was still not changed enough that allowed Obama a 2nd term?
Could that be maybe that he had charisma and no decades of investigations by the other side that turned up nothing and are now forgotten?
So you where saying that the Dems have a better chance now? Because it didn't sound like it to me.
Also, i really forgot that you actually think the Democratic Party is liberal, as opposed to centre right. Which is why historically more people voting = Dems winning.
And if anything, last election showed that the liberals are the ones that don't like the Dems, see: Bernie Bros that didn't vote.
Internment camps being used to kill people through disease and starvation was already a thing. The Nazis just took it up a notch to just doing it themselves with German efficiency. Just like with genocide itself. Before it was usually done by troops killing fleeing people after a battle etc.
Nazi Germany wasn't the first industrialized genocide. That honor befalls (at least) the Turks exterminating the Armenians, during WWI. Genocide itself, of course, is centuries older.
As for internment camps as death camps - the difference remains. The death camps had literally no other point but pure destruction. The majority of victims died within two hours of arrival by train. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands died in the concentration camps - they were horrible. But they were meant to concentrate (slave-) workforce, to supply labor until the people were used up and died. These are the horrible camps most movies are about or take place in (such as Schindler's List, La Vita è Bella, etc). The destruction camps literally didn't even have a kitchen or sleeping barracks for the arrivals - they weren't needed because they didn't live long enough. Look up Treblinka II, and compare and contrast to, for example, Treblinka I, which was a concentration camp.
Anyway, to come back to modern day, what I find horrifying is that a lot of people who are now self-identifying as Nazi, and even those who aren't but express understanding or sympathy, are literally worse than most actual Nazis. Most members of the Nazi party didn't know what was going to happen or, for a long time, what was happening. And no, I don't mean to use "Wir haben Es night Gewüsst" as an excuse, to be clear. But back in 1923 the Nazi party was nothing more than a political party - although a pretty sucky one with horrible talking points. By 1939 the Nazi state was being installed and a lot of people probably regretted voting for them (and others, of course, didn't). Being a Nazi in 1923 or 1944 is a big difference. Being a Nazi in 2017, knowing full well what happened and approving of it...That's something else. That's knowing as much as the camp commanders and stil lsaying "oh sure, fine".
I think every living president intends to release a better statement than Trump's.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm trying to think how you could have gotten everything this ass-backwards, but I'm having a hard time coming up with plausible reasons other than brain damage or deliberate trolling.
No, I am saying that there are right-leaning moderates who would vote against trump, but the hyperbole of the left producing the appearance of frothing SJW crusaders and thought police might re-convince them to stay home and not vote at all.
Mitt Romney. For all the character assassination during the election, he's still a New England governor who managed to tick off both the base AND the center. He helped design the Massachusetts health care law that became the framework used to design Obamacare, and hoped that would be forgotten later.
But yeah, the media breaking its own back to carry Obama's water didn't hurt.
You're missing the point, yet again. The Dems do have a better chance now, yes, but they're still outnumbered by almost half-again their numbers (instead of the usual double) and they still require different strategy from the Reps to win - they still have to court the center. Spare me your tired "they're not left they're center right," pablum, it's irrelevant to the discussion because we're talking about US elections, not comparing political stances internationally. They're the left in this country.
Last election, losing Bernie hurt them more among the undecideds than their base. The base went into full "no trump, at any cost - even if that means Hillary" mode after the primaries, a few loud statistical anomalies aside. They held their nose.
All he had to do was leave it alone after Monday. After his revised statement we would have felt he waited too long, but I am pretty sure most would have let it go sooner rather then later, we would have felt at least he learned a lesson.
Now though? He pretty much discredited everything he said Monday, because he had to have yet another fight with the media. Those "nice people" on the protestor side still decided it was okay to march with Nazi's, KKK, and White Supremacists, so I am sorry, but no "nice person" is going to suck it up and march with people like that just for a fucking statue. If they put up with those idiots for a statue, they are not "nice people", they are either agreeing with said groups, or are idiots. Also I am sorry, but a few people bringing baseball bats to the counter-protestor side (when the fucking Nazi's are carrying machine guns) does not make them morally equivalent to said Nazi's.
If he does not wrangle in his pride it will be his undoing, because people on both sides are going to remember this comes next election.
Now though? He pretty much discredited everything he said Monday, because he had to have yet another fight with the media. Those "nice people" on the protestor side still decided it was okay to march with Nazi's, KKK, and White Supremacists, so I am sorry, but no "nice person" is going to suck it up and march with people like that just for a fucking statue. If they put up with those idiots for a statue, they are not "nice people", they are either agreeing with said groups, or are idiots. Also I am sorry, but a few people bringing baseball bats to the counter-protestor side (when the fucking Nazi's are carrying machine guns) does not make them morally equivalent to said Nazi's.
If he does not wrangle in his pride it will be his undoing, because people on both sides are going to remember this comes next election.
My Congressman has been silent on all matters stemming from this weekend. Nothing from his twitter feed or web site since the beginning of the month. Both senators denounced the violence on Saturday, but nothing about yesterday's statement yet.[DOUBLEPOST=1502900625,1502900214][/DOUBLEPOST]
If they don't turn on him, the right wing noise machine will rationalize all this, and nothing will change.
Has he lost Hannity or Rush or the morons at Fox and Friends? One or two no-names during the hours when no one is watching doesn't count, and Shepard Smith is an anomoly.
If they don't turn on him, the right wing noise machine will rationalize all this, and nothing will change.
I'm with @DarkAudit on this one, though for slightly different reasons. Long story short: there's very few things that will cause somebody to change their vote from their "usual" vote. If a policy causes you to lose your job/spouse/kids/house/etc, then yes. Not a whole lot else. People need something that affects THEM to change their patterns.
Cynical yes, but hey.
That was a big reason why WV went from deep Democrat to hardcore GOP in the last decade. As the economic reality of the decline of the coal fields took hold, the mine owners hatched the "war on coal" strategy and fed the state a steady diet of it for years. It didn't matter that mines were mined out and society itself had had enough of mountaintop removal. It didn't matter that it was far cheaper to mine elsewhere where the coal was easier to get to and miners could be found for less money. It was all Obama's and TEH EBIL EPA's fault. Guys like Don Blankenship and Bob Murray took to the airwaves and pounded this point home relentlessly. Didn't matter that they were directly responsible for men dying at their mines. "Fuck safety, move coal," was their mantra. But they promoted themselves as champions of the "little guy," and brought in big name celebrities from the right to further amplify the message.
And it worked. Then-Governor Joe Manchin was reduced to a spokeslackey for Blankenship during the Upper Big Branch disaster. A disaster that landed Blankenship in prison, BTW. The 2014 Senate race between Natalie Tennant and Shelley Moore degenerated into a contest to see who could shout "FUCK OBAMA!!" the loudest. The entire GOP slate ran on "war on coal," and the Democrats didn't seem interested in countering that. So for the first time in decades, the control of the legislature wound up in GOP hands.
And given constant reinforcement from talk radio, that's not likely to change. It's one reason why I'd be making quick tracks out of here if I ever hit the lottery.
So do tell, where where those right-leaning moderates in 2012? You know, back when Obama was implementing his SJW / affirmative action agenda?
So now the media does work to help / hurt a candidate, unless it's 2016, then the non-stop coverage of the e-mail didn't matter as much as people on the internet being "snowflakes"?
Yeah, i'm missing the point of a poll that uses liberal vs. conservative, instead of Dem vs Rep.
Not having an actual liberal party doesn't mean there are no actual liberals around.
Bernie was an independent that ran as a Democrat because there is no other option, not because he wasn't already a leftist.
I like how you use that as an example of moderates not voting, as if Bernie Bro where not the most liberal / left wing people in your country. I mean being "extreme" was how everyone that wasn't on his side characterized him.
I mean seriously, if the moderates where for the most leftist candidate while the self described liberals where not would make US politics even more anomalous. "I'm a moderate, give me universal healthcare and socialism pls."
Wasn't the Armenian one more like the Trail of Tears, with some massacres here and there?
Also, pretty sure genocide is in the Bible, when God told the chosen people to kill all the men and take the women and children, coz that's the land Moses promised etc. So centuries is a bit on the low side of estimates imo.
Right, because even the nazis started with "normal" concentration camps, and then moved to "the final solution" when their "just put them all in Madagascar" plan proved unfeasible.
You know, nazis would be so ridiculous if they didn't actually manage to murder over 6 million people.
The reason Trump won was because he convinced enough people close to the center to get sucked into his candor, and then a huge chunk on the left that would have voted just stayed home because they didn't want to vote for Hillary either ("Never Hillary, Bernie Forever!"). Considering he now has a 61% disapproval rating in his first year and keeps digging that trench deeper, it's either going to throw the center more to the left again just to stop the madness, and will bring out more on the left in general just because they will take anyone over Trump at this point. Even counting Hillary's 3 million extra in the popular vote, she still got 4 million less votes then Barack Obama in 2008.
There is not enough voters who just watch FOX NEWS all day to just keep him in office, otherwise we would have never had Barack Obama as President in the first place considering how much the right had a hate boner for him in 2008. Trump won because of a bad case of apathy on the left in some key states (Did Hillary even visit any of the battleground states? I don't remember her ever holding rallies there like Trump did), and I just don't see those same people staying home next election, because they now are living the fruits of that choice.
3M and Campbell have dropped out of the Manufacturing Hand-Fluffing Council as well.
No. When the word Genocide was coined it was to describe what the Nazis did to the Jews and the Ottoman Empire did to the Armenians. Pretty much every scholar who studies Genocides is in agreement that this qualifies.