From the documentary:

One of the pro-communist, anti-nazi lawyers caught in the web was Hans Litting who had defended Communists against the wrath of violent Nazis, even daring to question Hitler on the stand for three hours in 1931 trial. Hitler never forgot what he viewed as humiliation at the hands of Litting and eventually deemed the prominent attorney an Enemy of the State. Sent to a concentration camp, this honorable half-jewish attorney paid for his integrity. After five years of Nazi torture in a concentration camp, Litting committed suicide.

"Those who cannot remember (or who intentionally ignore) the past are condemned to repeat it.".

Sadly, those who actually need to learn about this history so as not to repeat it are too stupid to even realize they're the ones repeating a history that should never be repeated.

I'm really going to enjoy watching the idiotic bible thumpers that put POS/POTUS in office suffer for their hypocrisy ...

I don't really like the comparisons of Trump to Hitler because Hitler killed tens of millions of people.   But there are echoes on the domestic level that we have to watch out for. 

I am not comparing the lethality of Hitler with Donald Trump, nor am I comparing the intellect of the two. Trump has already made several boneheaded mistakes and undoubtedly will make several more. If one watches the documentary though, one can see various parallels in technique. This is not to say that he will start concentration camps, but that we should be careful of the ways in which we dismiss the operations of government in the assurance that the Constitution will always hold against the forces brought against it. 

I agree

The video is comparing Hitler's method to rise to power with some of the steps Trump is taking.

Any comparisons with individual Nazis are unnecessary. All Nazis are worthless scumpuppies. If you ever see a Nazi, stomp the Nazi...

And then there were...

The hysteria keeps ratcheting up. When will the fever break?

Who is hysterical?

I thought you liked history and would relish the chance of pointing out the so many ways that the rise of Hitler and his consolidation of power is not at all like the rise of Trump.

The purpose of me posting this video is more a precaution than a prediction. I do not think that Trump will murder many millions of people, but he does have the proclivities of a strongman type, and the separation of wanting something from doing something is painfully small. 

How gullible must one be to think that Trump is treating his office as a solemn duty to to what is best for the American people and not see that he is basically drunk with power and trying to see just how far he can go doing whatever he wants to do?

I thought this was an interesting point made on Reddit:

It’s hard to overstate how badly the Germans took to losing WWI. They were arguably the most scientifically advanced country on earth, with a world class (pre-war) economy and military. Only decades earlier it was they who easily defeated France, now their old enemies were forcing them to demilitarize, pay exorbitant reparations, and adopt a government that lacked any legitimacy.

Weimar Germany suffered from devastating hyperinflation and constant civil strife. Things were very polarized. The rise of Bolshevism in the East was a major cause of fear.

Many refused to believe that they could have lost WWI unless they’d been betrayed. This allowed people to adopt the myth that Jews and socialists had sold them out, that if the military had been allowed to carry on the fight they would have won. This wasn’t true but it’s what people wanted to believe, rather than acknowledge failure.

Hitler was charismatic and very politically astute. He knew exactly how to play to these feelings of anger, pride, fear and discontent . That’s the short answer of why people supported him. I’m sure there’s more that I have missed. How were the Nazi's able to convince the German population to go along with their brand of government : r/AskHistory

Hyperinflation, refusing to believe they lost, empowering a small minded but charismatic bigot who knows how to enflame his supporters' feelings of anger, pride, fear and discontent... "But I mean those comparisons are crazy right? To compare the Trump with Hitler is insane! Right? I mean Trump is nothing like Hitler in 1942 so this kind of attempted connection is dishonest and irrelevant, right? Wait, what? You mean it took Hitler almost a decade in German politics before he actually started committing genocide? So, you're saying Trump is not Hitler in 1942 but very much like Hitler of 1936? No! I still can't accept such rational comparisons! I must reject such rational lines of thought and call you all communists because that's what my Dear leader asks of me! Seig Heil!".

I thought this was an interesting point made on Reddit:

It is. I was basically thinking about the factors that let Hiter rise to power on my way home from work this morning. Pretty much none of them exist in America. Trump may have dreams of going down in history as a strongman who did great things for his country, and he may. However, he's never going to be allowed to be a dictator. Probably most of what he tries to do is going to end up in court, whether it's actually illegal or not. That is, I think the Dem plan is going to be to flood him with as many lawsuits as possible. In other words, there's just no fertile conditions for Trump to actually do what the Left wants everyone to believe he's going to do. 

Trump is going to package all his grievances and present them to the Supreme Court. Then we know how far he will be allowed to go. 

He has already said someone who saves his country cannot be in violation of the law. If he's correct, that could be legal justification for any physical action taken against him, right?

What does that have to do with anything I said? 

Also, do you think Trump can set the Supreme Court's docket? If so, you'd be wrong.

So, you're saying Trump is not Hitler in 1942 but very much like Hitler of 1936? No! I still can't accept such rational comparisons! I must reject such rational lines of thought and call you all communists because that's what my Dear leader asks of me! Seig Heil!".

Okay, a couple of things to consider. First and most obvious, Trump is on his second term and can't run again. Second, he's what? 78 or something? Hitler was 50 when WWII started, making him 44 in 1936. 

To compare the Trump with Hitler is insane! Right?

Yeah, pretty much. 

Yeah, pretty much. 

After all, comparing Trump and his supporters to nazis was one of many things that made the left lose the last election.

Obviously, they have not learned and will continue their sanity well into the mid terms....and lose again.

Then we can welcome Vance as president for 8 years. 

ut the so many ways that the rise of Hitler and his consolidation of power is not at all like the rise of Trump.

Because, on it's face, the claim is incredibly stupid and makes me dismiss people who make it as hysterics. There's no surer way for the anti-Trump crowd to lose credibility than to start playing "he's just like Hitler" crowd. Let's take a look at Hitler's actions upon assuming power.

Has Trump suspended Constitutional  rights? Nope. (The ability enjoyed by everyone here to obsessively attack him should be a tip off)

Has Trump prohibited public political gatherings?  Nope. Turn on the TV.  (I'm sure somewhere today people are waving mexican flags and protesting our immigration laws)

Has he built a concentration camp to house political prisoners? Nope.  (The opposite. He's letting people out of jails)

Has he outlawed Labor unions?  Nope. (in fact he nominated a pro labor secretary supported by unions)

Has Trump assumed the powers to issue laws by decree that supersede the Constitution ? Nope. (Unlike Joe Biden he has not tried to amend the constitution by tweet nor even dictate a law) 

What's he done that's so bad?  He renamed things, like Obama did.  He renamed Obama's USDS to DOGE and looks for government waste.  In reality, his actions are being challenged by his opponents in Court.  He's  won some court cases and lost others and his administration has followed those rulings.  JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER ADMINISTRATION

I was basically thinking about the factors that let Hiter rise to power on my way home from work this morning. Pretty much none of them exist in America.

Parallels do exist. Trump is exploiting a perceived difference to foist his skewed version of power on the United States. He is actively working to censor government websites, rewriting history according to what he thinks it should say, not what actually occurred. He is launching spurious investigations into people who investigated and prosecuted him for perfectly sound legal reasons. He discredits whole institutions like the FBI. He is removing the bodies that provide for regulation of our society, etc., all of these moves are designed to either show action to his base of supporters and/or remove the impediments from his path towards totality. 

I did not post this as a direct analogy, but rather as a moment of historical significance that reflects in certain ways on the present situation. As a country, I think we are definitely heading towards a point where looking back, we will see where we should have made different decisions. I just do not want the results of those decisions to be beyond correction. Hitler did not just happen. Viktor Orban did not just happen. Vladimir Putin did not just happen. Before we get to the point of no return, I would like to make sure that Trump does not just happen. It may be too late. Or not. I am advising caution and clear eyed viewing of the present circumstances. As with everything Trump, it is like watching a train wreck: All of that mass and inertia slamming into our Constitution.

Trump is of course not going to pull off a Hitler, and I do not believe that he has the same motivation or desires as Hitler.    And, as you note, the circumstances are quite different.   The USA is not licking its wounds from an embarrassing loss in war, we are very prosperous and by all rights should be content with the state of affairs.   The biggest problems that Trump supporters have other than prices is a backlash against liberalism dealing with gender and sexuality, sensible environmental practices, grossly exaggerated negatives regarding illegals, and any attempt to reduce access to guns by irresponsible / dangerous individuals.

What the video shows is that there are parallels between the tactics used by rising dictators and some of the crap Trump is doing such as firing inspectors general, trying to fire all opposition to him (e.g. the DoJ attorneys who worked on his criminal cases), the demonization of illegal immigrants, the constant attempts to push past the limits of the law, etc.

It also shows how easy it is for people to be persuaded and coerced by a demagogue.   How they slowly fall into line and start believing the bullshit.   That part is quite clear and evident today with Trump.   For example, I have yet to see a Trump supporter acknowledge that Trump's tariffs were unnecessary and counter-productive.   That not only did his public attempts at bullying (rather than private negotiation) further alienate nations from the USA, but executing tariffs will do the exact opposite of a key reason he was elected — to 'fix' the high prices and interest rates.

[✘]

They will fast track cases to any extent Trump wants.

Another witless, entirely dishonest strawman.

Another witless, entirely dishonest strawman.

Maybe you did not pay attention during the last election.

Many on your side referred to Trump as Hitler and Nazi. 

My post stands as fact.

Many on your side referred to Trump as Hitler and Nazi. 

Focus on the article.   Thomas has not done that here.

Post something that is honest.

Thomas has not done that here.

Show where I said he did.

"Post something that is honest."

Ironic. You first.

Your post exhibits the problem of most discussion on the forum: We talk past one another. We do not listen to the expressed concerns of others but jump in with both feet, stomping around on fish that are not there.

I did not claim that the circumstances are identical. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that there were differences, as you must have seen because you quoted where I said it. So your bitching about the strawman of "He's just like Hitler" would be funny if not for the fact that there are a great many people out there who lack the skills to make the distinction that you are in fact lying about what I am saying. Then you go on to point out differences. Good for you. 

While he has not attempted to suspend the Constitution, he has attempted to remove birthright citizenship from certain individuals by executive order. Colloquially known as, "Because I said so!" The Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech is under assault by various similar edicts and pre-censoring threats. He has suspended prosecutions on a quid pro quo basis with the explicit threat of future prosecution if people don't do what they are "supposed" to. I could go on, but I am not going to waste my time. 

Trump's actions are not the same as every other administration.  The mere claim that they are is a slap in the face of the people who do not want the government to be run by a tin-pot dictator wannabe. Your commentary suggests the Wizard of Oz thinking. Better not look behind that curtain.

e has attempted to remove birthright citizenship from certain individuals by executive order

Yes. He's issued an order asserting a power he believes he has as Chief Executive.  A court ruled against him. He's following the Court ruling and appealing. So your point is either absurd, because it's the exact opposite of what Hitler actually did, or it's so generic as to be applicable to every chief executive in history. He issued an executive order that was challenged in Court! The horror!

He's following our established Constitutional procedure. Hitler suspended Constitutional procedures. See the massive difference?

he Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech is under assault by various similar edicts and pre-censoring threats

 I have no idea what this means.  Hitler actually suspended German speech rights.  Trump's done nothing of the sort.  The hint he has started acting like Hitler is when you get in trouble or censored for claiming he's acting like Hitler.  YOur claim is self defeating because every single American can view and publish insane anti-Trump diatribes to their heart's content.

"Pre censoring threats" is just a word salad designed to imply something nefarious exists that has no actual basis in reality. 

 He has suspended prosecutions on a quid pro quo basis with the explicit threat of future prosecution if people don't do what they are "supposed" to. 

That's pretty much what every prosecutorial office in the country has done since time immemorial. Prosecutorial discretion is an executive power. Biden exercised it all the time to progressive cheers. Now it's "that what Hitler does"

.  The mere claim that they are is a slap in the face of the people who do not want the governmen

Your desperation to portray yourself as an oppressed victim is a slap in the face of the people who actually lost all their rights in Nazi Germany.   

Your desperation to portray yourself as an oppressed victim is a slap in the face of the people who actually lost all their rights in Nazi Germany.   

I made no such claim or attempt. I was noting parallels in methods. Hitler was, at the beginning, just a crackpot. Through the manipulation of propaganda over time he grew in political stature. He did not just burst upon the scene and say, "Hey! I'm your evil dictator. Die Jews and people who speak against me!"  

We now have in office a Blunderkin who wishes to be all powerful. He worships at the feet of Viktor Orban, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un and would like nothing better than to fully emulate their power. He is not there yet. But, according to your commentary, we need to go about our business until he actually accomplishes steps towards this power. Oopsy! Too late. We were concerned, now we cannot do anything. Brilliant strategy./s 

Hitler was, at the beginning, just a crackpot. Through the manipulation of propaganda over time he grew in political stature. He did not just burst upon the scene and say, "Hey! I'm your evil dictator. Die Jews and people who speak against me!"  

Just like pretty much every politician. Did Joe Biden start off by saying "I'm going to let men shower with girls because I believe gender has no biological basis" 

Again, you just keep throwing the Hitler comparisons out there, deny that Trump's really like Hitler and then hide behind some generic 'similarities' that make the comparison silly. 

ul. He worships at the feet of Viktor Orban, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un and would like nothing better than to fully emulate their power. 

Jusy more silly hyperbole that merits nothing than an eyeroll. 

t. But, according to your commentary, we need to go about our business until he actually accomplishes steps towards this power

Yes, that's how the rule of law works. You can't act based on your imagined  ability to read Trump's mind or your intuition that he's "really" a dictator despite, you know, following the Constitution. 

Amazing how they are far more infatuated wuth what Trump "might" do, than how they paid attention to what Biden DID. 

The word "cult" has been bantered about here to describe Trump supporters, but the old saying is truer today than ever before...

" Whatever the left accuses the right of doing, it is guaranteed they are already doing it". 

I don't remember that Biden was committing genocide at the end of his term... but don't let that stop you from comparing Biden and Hitler. That's standard MAGA procedure, right?

don't remember that Biden was committing genocide at the end of his term.

Which genocides has Trump committed? 

Doesn't seem to stop you from comparing Hitler to him...

In other words, there's just no fertile conditions for Trump to actually do what the Left wants everyone to believe he's going to do. 

No more misdirection!

This is what MAGAs and Trump supporters , need to focus on for ONCE!  And, before it happens further. . . consider what will happen to the GOP if they fail to succeed in keeping 'binds' on Trump and his "ism."  History is going to CASTRATE the GOP for the rest of time for what it has already lain down to accept. Think deeply!

Why Republican Politicians Do Whatever Trump Says

The former president’s stories of business dominance were often exaggerated. With Republican politicians, he’s found a group he can control.

By  McKay Coppins

The story Donald Trump tells about himself—and to himself—has always been one of domination. It runs through the canonical texts of his personal mythology. In  The Art of the Deal , he filled page after page with examples of his hard-nosed negotiating tactics. On  The Apprentice , he lorded over a boardroom full of supplicants competing for his approval. And at his campaign rallies, he routinely regales crowds with tales of strong-arming various world leaders in the Oval Office.

This image of Trump has always been dubious. Those boardroom scenes were, after all, reality-TV contrivances; those stories in his book were,  by his own ghostwriter’s account , exaggerated in many cases to make Trump appear savvier than he was. And there’s been  ample   reporting  to suggest that many of the world leaders with whom Trump interacted as president saw him more as an easily manipulated mark than as a domineering statesman to be feared.

The truth is that Trump, for all of his tough-guy posturing, spent most of his career failing to push people around and bend them to his will.

That is, until he started dealing with Republican politicians.

For nearly a decade now, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to make congressional Republicans do what he wants. He threatens them. He bullies them. He extracts from them theatrical displays of devotion—and if they cross him, he makes them pay. If there is one arena of American power in which Trump has been able to actually be the merciless alpha he played on TV—and there may, indeed, be only one—it is Republican politics.

More on link!

theatlantic

But I mean those comparisons are crazy right? To compare the Trump with Hitler is insane! Right?

Yes.  100%

Umm........  Sean?

Your Comment was about Biden and Hitler. I reacted to that. If you automatically think "Trump" when you hear "Hitler"... that's on you.

Comment was about Biden and Hitler. I reacted to that. If you automatically think "Trump" when you hear "Hitler"... that's on you.

Good point Bob. This seed has nothing to do with comparisons between Trump and Hitler. You certainly didn't make any, that's for sure. 

Yes.  100%

As I said, it's crazy to compare him with the genocidal maniac Hitler became. However, it's completely rational and in fact warranted to compare him to Hitler early in Hitlers political career since there are numerous similarities to both how they rose to power and the grievance filled hateful rhetoric used to blame liberals, minorities and immigrants for all of the nation's problems. If kept in check we will no doubt weather the storm and the sooner Trump is thrown in the dustbin of history the better. But that doesn't mean we should just turn a blind eye to this narcissistic bridge troll who sees nothing wrong with emulating his hero Adolf.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

 Martin Niemöller

Hitler wasn't the first modern fascist. That was Mussolini. Il Duce didn't exterminate minorities... although quite a few spent long years in prison. Some were "tried and executed". But there were no death camps in Italy.

So far, Trump is Mussolini, not Hitler. But hey! Hitler started out as Mussolini, too.

Trump has more modern heroes in dictatorships. Just look at his personal and presidential leanings. Observe the world leaders whom he compliments and those more familiar to us world leaders whom he belittles and sends emissaries to lecture. The thing speaks for itself. History yes is "back to the future." It is prologue.

More to the point, there are 'living' dictators for Trump to court and them he does. We have record of their visitations  and symbols of affections toward him, and soon he will visit with two such dominating figures in. . . Saudi Arabia. The goal to discuss how to split the 'spoil' of a free Ukraine—from itself!

(This is not towards you, Bob.)

It would be reckless and stupid to shelve the past as if it can not returned (with a vengeance all it own). It is the point of putting words down on paper in the pages of a book. . . so that a record can be pulled and learnt from in the Present: For good. For honor. For Edification. For Correction. For Not Repeating.

Rather than reply to the specifics of your post, I want to point out that what you wrote represents your opinion, not necessarily facts. That is, the things you believe you see going on are just that; how they look to you. They don't represent how I and many others see them. 

He is actively working to censor government websites, rewriting history according to what he thinks it should say, not what actually occurred. He is launching spurious investigations into people who investigated and prosecuted him for perfectly sound legal reasons. He discredits whole institutions like the FBI. He is removing the bodies that provide for regulation of our society, etc.,

Not that I intend to start an argument about these things. I just list them as an example to make my point, which is...

How can I take your effort to point out parallels between Trump and Hitler as having value when I don't think the quote above is correct? You think those things provide the parallels but we'd first have to agree that those things reflect reality as you wrote it. 

What in this quote ...

Thomas @6.1.9 ☞ He is actively working to censor government websites, rewriting history according to what he thinks it should say, not what actually occurred. He is launching spurious investigations into people who investigated and prosecuted him for perfectly sound legal reasons. He discredits whole institutions like the FBI. He is removing the bodies that provide for regulation of our society, etc.,

... do you think is incorrect?

As a country, I think we are definitely heading towards a point where looking back, we will see where we should have made different decisions. I just do not want the results of those decisions to be beyond correction. Hitler did not just happen. Viktor Orban did not just happen. Vladimir Putin did not just happen. Before we get to the point of no return, I would like to make sure that Trump does not just happen. It may be too late. Or not. I am advising caution and clear eyed viewing of the present circumstances.

You owe no one any apology for observing what is there to be taken stock of with common-sense. President Trump has domination tendencies, some realized and some not (so far). That he is clearly in pursuit of turning this country against those country's he personally feels treats us as 'fools' (his choice wording) and seeking "end of the world" retribution against those who he feel has slighted him is plain to see. That is he is seeking authority from whatever 'source' he can to reckon what he will against his perceived rivals and enemies. . . using the might of the United States as his 'arm' and power. 

Trump pals around with dictators we know this already from the news stories we can find pervasive. Dictators are very 'economical' with their time. (Where is Chairman Kim Jong-Un since Trump's 'ascension'? What's he up to these days? He has not send an official 'missive' - or has he secreted one to Trump? I digress.) 

Trump kept a book on his night-stand during his first marriage (see below):

According to a 1990 Vanity Fair  interview  , Ivana Trump once told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that her husband, real-estate mogul Donald Trump, now a leading Republican presidential candidate, kept a book of Hitler's speeches near his bed.

"Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed ... Hitler's speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist ," Marie Brenner wrote.

Hitler was one of history's most prolific orators, building a genocidal Nazi regime with speeches that bewitched audiences.

"He learned how to become a charismatic speaker, and people, for whatever reason, became enamored with him," Professor Bruce Loebs, who has taught a class called the Rhetoric of Hitler and Churchill for the past 46 years at Idaho State University, told Business Insider earlier this year.

"People were most willing to follow him, because he seemed to have the right answers in a time of enormous economic upheaval."

businessinsider

Trump's worse ambitions, drives, and intentions are only tampered down by how much 'cold water' this democracy can toss on them. Otherwise, we would reap the worse Whirlwind, that man can whip up. After all , watching what he had done already and what he will do when the sun comes up again . . . is a surefire indicator of his past as prologue to act in a mean-spirited, cruel, and deliberate way to 'cut asunder' anybody who crosses his path to where he is attending to 'get'!

Donald Trump is definitely CHANNELING a single or a select group of dictators. Probably have been doing so all his life-if the facts could be laid bare. And "extensive" look into whom Trump has idolized may explain a great many things on the topic about him.

In his own peculiar way and set of factors, Trump, shall we give him his due, a charismatic 'mastermind .'  To his followers, nevertheless.

He is censoring government websites, the courts are clawing at least some of it back, which is a really good thing, but KPBS

In his first week in office, President Donald Trump issued executive orders rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Now staff at the National Science Foundation are scouring thousands of research projects for dozens of words that could violate those orders. The agency already notified scientists to halt work that doesn’t adhere to Trump's directives.

The list of banned words circulating at the National Science Foundation and science circles across the country includes: women, disability, bias, status, trauma, Black, Hispanic communities, as well as socioeconomic, ethnicity and systemic.

UC San Diego public health scientist Rebecca Fielding-Miller called the list Orwellian, and said it will hamper crucial research.

“If I can't say the word 'women,' I can't tell you that an abortion ban is going to hurt women,” Fielding-Miller said. “If I can't say race and ethnicity, I can't tell you that Hispanic communities are experiencing this and that or that there's less vaccination happening in African American communities.”

And rewrite history Trump’s urgent push to rewrite American history

...And the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was a   heroic act of collective patriotism , not a violent effort to overturn an election.

Those are some of the perspectives President Donald Trump has advanced   as he moves in the early days of his second presidency to reframe American history, in parallel with his efforts to reshape the government. In recasting established facts, shading long-accepted truths and endorsing falsehoods, Trump is pushing one big idea: that America is a once-great, uniquely virtuous nation whose past has been betrayed by weak leaders and vicious adversaries.

“He badly misunderstands the difference between history and propaganda,” said Kevin Kruse, a history professor at Princeton University   frequently critical of Trump. “A history that only praises the nation and offers no criticism, that looks only at the positive aspects, including mythologies — that is not history, that is propaganda.”

He is launching spurious investigations into people who investigated and prosecuted him for perfectly sound legal reasons. Pam Bondi Orders Probe of Donald Trumps Federal Cases

Do I really need to go on? 

Hitler’s ideas included inequality among  races , nations, and individuals as part of an unchangeable natural order that exalted the “ Aryan  race” as the creative element of mankind. According to Hitler, the natural unit of mankind was the  Volk  (“the people”), of which the German people was the greatest. Moreover, he believed that the state existed to serve the  Volk —a mission that to him the  Weimar German Republic  betrayed. All  morality  and truth were judged by this criterion: whether it was in accordance with the interest and preservation of the  Volk . Parliamentary democratic government stood doubly condemned. It assumed the equality of individuals that for Hitler did not exist and supposed that what was in the interests of the  Volk  could be decided by parliamentary procedures. Instead, Hitler argued that the unity of the  Volk  would find its incarnation in the  Führer , endowed with perfect authority. Below the Führer the party was drawn from the  Volk  and was in turn its safeguard.

britannica

Trump has unified the divided republican party and now (as he is putting out the narrative) 'phase II' has some level of accomplishment: The popular vote came to Trump (albeit small - he MAGNIFIES it through repeat rhetoric about 'MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE' along with Musk). Thus, next up is the unification of the federal system under Trump. And, then he will attack the courts (already fired the first 'round') to unify courts under Trump. . . . 

Trump gives a damn about his enemies; the plan and intention is to squash them—in the end. That's my opinion and a sketch of the man and his 'movement.'

He is censoring government websites, the courts are clawing at least some of it back, which is a really good thing, but

Well, you at least provided a good example of what I'm talking about. We're asked to believe that Trump is censuring words and the article is the evidence. The problem is that there's no actual evidence in the article. Considering the charge and the obvious dissatisfaction of the people testifying in the article, the obvious question is, where's the policy letter? Considering the number of people impacted, if this was what the article claims it to be, then someone should have leaked it by now. If I'm supposed to be concerned, why would they not let me get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak? 

Because no matter what you think of Trump, or anyone who works under him, to think banning a word like 'woman' would fly with their base, let alone anyone else. (Add to this the fact that banning a word like 'woman' and replace it with 'person capable of birthing' is demonstrably something far more likely to come from the Left.)

So, reading between the lines, I find it far more likely that these aren't banned words. They are search terms used to find studies the Trump admin desires to look at. In other words...

Now staff at the National Science Foundation are scouring thousands of research projects for dozens of words that could violate those orders.

... more likely should have read...

Now staff at the National Science Foundation are using dozens of words (as search terms) to scour thousands of research projects that could violate those orders. 

Doesn't my rewrite make much more sense and seem a lot more likely? Assuming that the terms listed in the article are examples of a longer list, no one on either side of the isle could fail to note that no one would be able to do anything at all, which, if my guess is correct, is the motive for the article. That is, they want people to think that Trump is actually banning words. 

Of course, I could be wrong. But, all it would have taken was for the journalist writing the story to provide the actual smoking gun, say, the actual policy that must be behind the claim, so I can read it for myself. Since they didn't, I have to suspect that these 'witnesses' in the article aren't referring to an actual ban on those words but, rather, that they believe it will have that effect. 

And rewrite history

I don't consider it rewriting history when someone says something I don't agree with. I would consider rewriting history as actually rewriting it. All the article shows evidence for is Trump's point of view on things. To my mind, downsizing the DOE and its influence over states would be the opposite move someone in Trump's position would take if they wanted to rewrite history. 

He is launching spurious investigations into people who investigated and prosecuted him for perfectly sound legal reasons.

I'm completely for the investigation. I just wish very much it could be someone else other than Trump appointees doing it. But where can we find the unbiased people we need at this late hour? And, obviously, I don't agree with you about it being spurious or the 'sound legal reasons', heck, the whole comment. 

Do I really need to go on?

It would be a waste of your time, as you're not getting my point, apparently. You ask if I need to go on, as if you made an argument that couldn't be challenged, but obviously, it can, which I say because I believe I have, even though you think I haven't. And so each of us keep swinging our mighty swords in our righteous wrath, knowing we'll eventually prevail. But we never do.

The only reason I replied to your latest post was to demonstrate this by showing how I see the subjects you brought up, not to argue the points themselves, as I think that would be a waste of time. 

I didn't mean that Trump is consciously imitating Mussolini. I doubt the President knows much about his Italian predecessor.

Trump is on a path similar to Mussolini‘s. For now. There are lots of possibilities for the future. 

The problem is that there's no actual evidence in the article.

It takes no effort to find plenty of reporting on this.

apnews

popular.info

apnews

As I said, it's crazy to compare him with the genocidal maniac Hitler became.

Agreed.  

Didn't stop you rolling out Niemoller, though, did it?

However, it's completely rational and in fact warranted to compare him to Hitler early in Hitlers political career since there are numerous similarities to both how they rose to power and the grievance filled hateful rhetoric used to blame liberals, minorities and immigrants for all of the nation's problems.

Absolutely not.  Nothing rational about it. Wildly melodramatic at best.  

If kept in check we will no doubt weather the storm and the sooner Trump is thrown in the dustbin of history the better. But that doesn't mean we should just turn a blind eye to this narcissistic bridge troll who sees nothing wrong with emulating his hero Adolf.

You may as well be.

When you start making Hitler comparisons, nobody except the extreme left takes you seriously anymore.  

It takes no effort to find plenty of reporting on this.

Except nothing you presented relates to the subjects I addressed. In other words, nothing you posted substantiates the claim that Trump or his minions are trying to censure words. If I tried this angle of attack, which I wouldn't, you'd call me disingenuous, and rightly so.  

It takes no effort to find plenty of reporting on this .

Now to address your post separately from my response in 6.1.40

"This" appears to suggest that you are attempting to characterize what I said to Thomas as a denial on my part that Trump is 'censuring' governmental websites. That may not be what you meant but, since there's nothing beyond the quote, there's no way to tell and this seems to be the most likely meaning. 

If so, let's establish that I completely recognize that Trump has shut down governmental websites based on what content they may contain, politically. The question is, does that represent censorship or something else? My position is that it is too early to tell. The mere fact that they were shut down is inconclusive. 

For instance, assume that an administration advocated for the elimination (literal death) of a segment of society and employed the various organs of the government to work towards that goal, and the new administration was opposed, would it be censorship for the new admin to shut down the communication portion of those organs until the new admin's priorities were established? 

Now suppose something not quite so dire. Suppose a previous admin championed something like DEI and propagated it through governmental organizations. The new admin is opposed to such an ideology and works to reverse it, beginning with shutting down the message governmental organizations were putting out to date for the purpose of making those same organizations put out the current admin's ideology. 

Is one case censorship and the other not? 

When one alters facts to say something unfactual, one is rewriting history, otherwise known as lying. This is the downfall of the information era because of the proliferation of just plain incorrect information.  Anyone with a communication device is capable of spreading the deepest BS they can imagine. Some of it is pretty ham-handed and easy to spot, while some is coded or phrased in a specious manner. It can sound correct on the first reading, and if one is watching or listening to it, that speciousness can slip by in an instant. Without the ability to back up and actually analyze what the person said, quite a few people will just accept the premise. If that premise is incorrect, then they will carry that incorrect information forward. With this incorrect information, i.e., misinformation, they will make decisions that may be affected by the same. As they used to say in programming, Garbage in, garbage out.

Every day on this forum I read examples of this type of misinformation thinking, some of them absolutely egregious and blatant, others merely misinformed. We have in this country a great service performed by actual journalists, people trained in the craft of sorting through data to get to the underlying facts. There is no such thing as an "alternate fact." An alternate fact is an untruth. There are suppositions that one can make and argue about based on actual data, but the data, the facts, are still the same. The world cannot even agree on facts. Americans are bombarded with "Alternate facts" and conclusions based upon same from all sides. Most of these come from quite obviously biased sources, so people should be able to sort through and determine the actual facts with relative ease. I have observed this sorting to be becoming rarer with time. This lack of even wanting to sort through the data is a problem. This is why the legacy or mainstream media (MSM) is important. They have journalists, real journalists, to sort through the data and separate truth from "Alternate fact." 

Trump (assume his administration is included) has been railing against the MSM forever. Why? Because he lies continuously, egregiously, and pathologically. His Freedom of Speech that he is continuously talking about is really the freedom to present his lies as fact without the benefit of a filter to show where he is stretching the truth or just plain lying. Millions of people follow him on social media and millions of people are led astray by his lies. The "Freedom of Speech" that Vance was talking about is the very same thing. These arguments supposedly for free speech are actually specious argumentation for the ability to spread untruths. I am not against free speech. I am against lying and having those lies go unchallenged as the lies that they are. 

Premise: Trump (read "administration") is trying to rewrite history.

Fact: NY Post

Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order on gender ideology demanded that federal agencies remove “all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages.”

“Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity,” it continued. “Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.” 

The 78-year-old president signed a similar order banning federal funding for   diversity, equity and inclusion   programs which has also resulted in references to DEI being scrubbed from government websites. 

When asked about reports that government websites would go dark Friday to comply with his executive orders Trump responded: “That doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me.” 

“DEI would have ruined our country. And now it’s dead. I think DEI is dead, so if they want to scrub the website, that’s OK with me,” he added. 

Fact: National Parks Service The webpage now reads:

Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) person was illegal. The Stonewall Uprising on June 28, 1969 is a milestone in the quest for LGB civil rights and provided momentum for a movement.

When one attempts to follow the links to the history, one is taken to this page:

Ooops. Can't say that patrons of a bar that was run by trans people got sick of being raided just because their clientell happened to be LGBTQ. But hey, they're only a limited part of the population.... Don't worry. It can't happen to you.

 This is just one of many webpages that have been taken down, scrubbed for the mere mention of Trans or other gender references. 

Do you have some special meaning for censorship?   Because clearly Trump and his minions are banning the use of words reflecting DEI, transgender, etc.

These are not obscene words or compromise national security but rather words reflecting views that Trump is trying to remove.

That is censorship as commonly defined.

Yes!

Removal of language that is vile, bigoted, threat to national security, up to the point of your example of genocide is not considered censorship.   Free speech has limits; language can be dangerous.

Removal of language that reflects gender identification, etc. is NOT dealing with dangerous language but rather the disallowing of language that the current administration ideologically opposes.

Do the math.

Some of it is pretty ham-handed and easy to spot, while some is coded or phrased in a specious manner. It can sound correct on the first reading, and if one is watching or listening to it, that speciousness can slip by in an instant.

I've had several conversations with my 31 year old son on this subject. He's and avid social media junkie and occasionally goes down some rabbit hole.

When one alters facts to say something unfactual, one is rewriting history, otherwise known as lying.

One doesn't need to go that far.  One can simply carefully curate a limited set of accurate data with the intention of persuading recipients to follow a prescribed view. 

Every day on this forum I read examples of this type of misinformation thinking,

Interesting how "misinformation thinking" is generally that which disagrees with your very left political views.

We have in this country a great service performed by actual journalists, people trained in the craft of sorting through data to get to the underlying facts.

We used to.  Not so much any more.

There is no such thing as an "alternate fact." An alternate fact is an untruth.

Of course there are "alternate facts".   Also known as "additional facts".  

Examples:

• Fact:  Only 7% of BLM protests during 2020 were violent.
• Alternate Fact:  BLM protests accounted for over $2billion worth of damage during 2020.

• Fact:  Heather Heyer was killed while participating in an unlawful riot.
• Alternate Fact:  Heather Heyer was murdered when a white supremacist ran her over with a car in Charlottesville.

• Fact:  The Houston Astros won the 2017 World Series.
• Alternate Fact:  The Houston Astros illegally used a camera system to steal signs during the 2017 regular and post season.

The biggest liar in any conversation is the one who says "those are the facts".  There are always more facts, they just don't want you looking at those.  

Trump (assume his administration is included) has been railing against the MSM forever. Why?

Because it developed a level of liberal bias that has become comical.

Millions of people follow him on social media and millions of people are led astray by his lies.

Not enough to make him president.  The Democratic Party appears to continue to live in denial about this.

When one attempts to follow the links to the history, one is taken to this page:

A non-working link on a webpage?   This is your evidence of "rewriting history"??  Are you even able to verify that the previously linked page in question contained accurate, unbiased information?  Are you even able to verify that page still exists?

Probably most of what he tries to do is going to end up in court,

Are you saying that the Supreme Court is not biased in favour of Trump?

When you start making Hitler comparisons, nobody except the extreme left takes you seriously anymore. 

Nobody on the right will listen but that's simply because that's what they want. The Nazi's were rightwing conservatives and those that still exist in our country have flocked to the Republican party and stand united with other rightwing conservatives like the Klan in support of Trump and his agenda. They all share a similar rightwing ideology, some are just more extreme and open about their praise of rightwing dictators like Hitler so when we point out Trump has some ominous similarities to Hitler it seems the rightwing extremists are like "Yeah! That's why we voted for him! Duh!". But the closer to center right you find those just trying to turn a blind eye or feigning offense.

That is censorship as commonly defined.

It is not.

If we really can't see the difference between government officials changing content on their own websites and "banning" words or "censorship", we are in much worse trouble than I had previously imagined.

The Italian Serie A league table also does not appear on any US Govt website.  That does not mean it is "banned" or that "censorship" is taking place.

This is your evidence of "rewriting history"?? 

To me, an obvious piece of evidence of rewriting history that everyone should know by now is Trump continuing to claim the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won. 

Trump is doing the usual Trump ... repeating a lie with the expectation that people will eventually believe it.    And now he has four years as PotUS to repeat this nonsense using the bully pulpit.

Rewriting history is the act of people (in this case Trump and his minions) actively pushing a desired alternate reality.

Nobody on the right will listen but that's simply because that's what they want.

Nobody who isn't a complete leftist will listen because it's batshit crazy.  

To me, an obvious piece of evidence of rewriting history that everyone should know by now is Trump continuing to claim the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won. 

Yes and no.

It's not rewriting history for him to think that, or even claim that. 

When he starts to change official government documents to reflect that, THEN he would be attempting to rewrite history.  To my knowledge that is not happening.

It is not.

Oh, you offer 'nuhuh'.   How persuasive  

If we really can't see the difference between government officials changing content on their own websites and "banning" words or "censorship", we are in much worse trouble than I had previously imagined.

You have your own special meaning of censorship.   A government can change anything on government-owned PUBLIC websites and this is categorically not censorship to you.   So if Trump decides to remove all references to Christianity on government-owned websites, you would not find that to be censorship?

The Italian Serie A league table also does not appear on any US Govt website.  That does not mean it is "banned" or that "censorship" is taking place.

This is so pathetic ... laughably so.   Censorship is not the mere absence of content, it is the banning of content — especially the removal of certain content because of ideological opposition.  

Government websites do not contain all the information on the planet, that does not mean that everything not included on the sites is banned or censored.

When he starts to change official government documents to reflect that, THEN he would be attempting to rewrite history. 

Rewriting history does not literally require rewriting history books and/or legal documents.   The phrase refers to pushing of an alternate reality ... typically by an organized body.

" Rewrite history ":  "To create a false narrative about how a historical event happened so as to promote one's own personal agenda or beliefs."   

Oh, you offer 'nuhuh'.   How persuasive

As if you are ever going to be persuaded of anything.

You're interpretation of censorship is obviously incorrect.  Use juvenile pouting verbiage if you like. 

You have your own special meaning of censorship.

I use the generally accepted meaning.

A government can change anything on government-owned PUBLIC websites and this is categorically not censorship to you.

Correct.  Censorship is the suppression of ideas, not the absence of stating them.

So if Trump decides to remove all references to Christianity on government-owned websites, you would not find that to be censorship?

Correct.  Of course.  

Censorship would be attempting to stop other people from making such references on their own websites.  Do you see how this works?

Censorship is not the mere absence of content, it is the banning of content

So we agree.  

especially the removal of certain content because of ideological opposition.  

Not at all.  Complete nonsense. How are you confused about the difference between revising their own content and attempting to suppress yours?

When Biden was elected and changed the White House web page to reflect his agenda, was that censorship?  Let me help you.... of course it wasn't.  When he changed government websites or publications to reflect new policies that he was elected to enact, the censorship idea never entered your mind, and you were correct.  

This is nothing more than another "rationalize some Trump hysteria" moment.

You're interpretation of censorship is obviously incorrect. 

You trying to redefine censorship is a bit ridiculous.

Censorship is the suppression of ideas, not the absence of stating them.

So you tacitly admit that your example of the lack of inclusion of the Italian Series A league table is NOT censorship.   As I noted.

Correct.  Of course.    Censorship would be attempting to stop other people from making such references on their own websites. 

Okay, you need to verify this because I am not confident this is what you mean.   

Do you actually hold that Trump could remove all references to Christianity (not religion in general, just Christianity) on government websites and that would NOT be censorship?   That it would only be censorship if he stopped people from mentioning Christianity on their own websites?   

So we agree.  

Probably not, I am sure you are pretending that Trump banning references to trans, etc. is not really 'banning'.

How are you confused about the difference between revising their own content and attempting to suppress yours?

Apparently you do not comprehend the difference between public and private websites; or think that a government public website is its own private property.    And from this, you then necessarily must hold that if Trump bans all references to Christianity on federal PUBLIC websites (and there is a substantial amount of references) that this is not censorship.   If so, you have your own little definition of censorship.

When Biden was elected and changed the White House web page to reflect his agenda, was that censorship? 

When a PotUS takes office, they will have pages designed to communicate their ideas.   Biden did not go to Trump's historical pages and change them.    Providing updated information on pages designed to reflect that information is not censorship.   (How ridiculous.)

This if fundamentally different from purging federal websites to exclude references to trans, etc.   And, yet again, you would not consider it censorship if the USA elected a publicly declared gnostic atheist who then proceeded to ban all references to Christianity from federal websites?

When he starts to change official government documents to reflect that, THEN he would be attempting to rewrite history.

Completely ridiculous.

The little game is to keep adding ridiculous conditions ... essentially redefining words.

You trying to redefine censorship is a bit ridiculous.

You're the one attempting to do that.  Yes, it is ridiculous.

So you tacitly admit that your example of the lack of inclusion of the Italian Series A league table is NOT censorship. 

Oh FFS.  No.  Not tacitly.  Blatantly.  That was, in fact, the entire point of that illustration.  Clearly it went past you like a Victor Osimhen penalty.

Do you actually hold that Trump could remove all references to Christianity (not religion in general, just Christianity) on government websites and that would NOT be censorship?   That it would only be censorship if he stopped people from mentioning Christianity on their own websites? 

Yes.  That is how censorship works.  

Let's make it more simple for you, OK?   I'm going to guess that word fuck does not appear on government websites.  I also suspect it would be taken down if it were found there.  That does not in any way, shape, or form, attempt to suppress or interfere with the use of the word on private websites.  The government is effectively saying "that's not a word we think is appropriate for us to use, but if you want to use it, go right ahead."

That's not censorship.

Probably not, I am sure you are pretending that Trump banning references to trans, etc. is not really 'banning'.

There is no pretending involved.  Removing something is not banning that thing, no matter how loudly insane extremists want to scream otherwise.  (see Serie A example above). 

Let's make it simple again:

When school districts across the United States started removing morning prayers from their daily routines, they were not "banning" prayer in schools.  If they try to stop individual students from praying... THAT is "banning".

When school districts remove sexually oriented material from elementary school libraries, that is also not "banning" anything.   If they start confiscating those materials from students who bring them from home, that's a "ban".  Those school libraries don't have Calculus books, either.  Doesn't mean Calculus is "banned".

Apparently you do not comprehend the difference between public and private websites.

That's a moronic statement.

 And from this, you then necessarily must hold that if Trump bans all references to Christianity on federal websites (and there is a substantial amount of references) that this is not censorship.

"Necessarily must hold"?  This thing that I've said plainly?   You're just not reading carefully at all, here, are you?  

If so, you have your own little definition of censorship.

Again, I use the commonly accepted definition.

When a PotUS takes office, they will have pages designed to communicate their ideas.   Biden did not go to Trump pages and change them.    Providing updated information on pages designed to reflect that information is not censorship.   (How ridiculous.)

*sigh*  Yes.  Calling that censorship would be ridiculous.  That was the point.  Kindly at least attempt to follow along.

This if fundamentally different from purging federal websites to exclude references to trans, etc.

You make so many assumptions in this statement that you will have a great deal of difficulty defending.  But the short answer is... updating federal websites to align with current policy is not censorship or banning.  News flash... the IRS website gets updated to reflect new policy every  year.

   And, yet again, you would not consider it censorship if the USA elected a publicly declared gnostic atheist who then proceeded to ban all references to Christianity from federal websites?

No.  Not censorship.  How is this difficult?

You're the one attempting to do that.  Yes, it is ridiculous.

More nuhuh

That was, in fact, the entire point of that illustration. 

Then, as I noted, your point is both confused and absurd.

You wrote this:

Jack@6.1.49 ☞ The Italian Serie A league table also does not appear on any US Govt website.  That does not mean it is "banned" or that "censorship" is taking place.

This is an example of something that has NEVER BEEN on a federal website.   You compare this to something that WAS on (many) federal websites and has been REMOVED due to an EO.   Hello?   As I noted, ...

TiG@6.1.53 ☞ Censorship is not the mere absence of content, it is the banning of content — especially the removal of certain content because of ideological opposition.  Government websites do not contain all the information on the planet, that does not mean that everything not included on the sites is banned or censored.

In short, your point is confused.   The fact that something is NOT on a federal website does not mean it is censorship.  All sorts of information is NOT on federal websites.   It is, however, censorship for Trump to order that a particular theme that is NOT obscene, harmful, etc. be removed merely because he disagrees with it on an ideological basis.

I'm going to guess that word fuck does not appear on government websites. ... The government is effectively saying "that's not a word we think is appropriate for us to use, but if you want to use it, go right ahead."

Removing that falls under obscenity.   You miss that part of my posts?   Repeating, since you are not paying attention, removing obscene or otherwise damaging language is not censorship.   Removing perfectly acceptable content due to ideological disagreement is censorship.   The fact that we are talking about public websites does not magically cause this to NOT be censorship.   That is just another rule you have made up.

When school districts across the United States started removing morning prayers from their daily routines, they were not "banning" prayer in schools.  If they try to stop individual students from praying... THAT is "banning".

Implementing changes to be compliant with the CotUS and, in particular, the 1st amendment in response to a SCotUS ruling is NOT censorship.    Your example is confused.

When school districts remove sexually oriented material from elementary school libraries, that is also not "banning" anything. 

Well that certainly is banning.   But we are talking about censorship.   Are you now going to focus on the word "ban" and provide special little rules that redefine that word too?  Removing sexually oriented material from elementary school libraries falls under the damaging criterion I stated upfront.    And, by the way, if those books were teaching kids about factors that are age inappropriate such as transexual operations, etc. that would also fall under damaging and I would not argue that it is censorship.   See how that works?

If they start confiscating those materials from students who bring them from home, that's a "ban". 

Ah yes, you actually are going to impose your own little rules to redefine the word 'ban'.

Those school libraries don't have Calculus books, either.  Doesn't mean Calculus is "banned".

And now we circle back to your utterly confused Italian Series A league table example.   As with that example, the absence of particular books in a school library does not mean the books were banned.   And of course it does not mean censorship took place either.    In the elementary school scenario, a fine example of censorship would be to remove all historical references to Christopher Columbus which factually and tastefully described him as an exploiter, conqueror, slave-trader, etc.

That's a moronic statement.

It is a proper response to you pretending that government websites are privately owned and ignoring that they are owned by the PUBLIC.   Government websites are OUR websites.   They are quite unlike the private website of IBM, Monsanto, ... , and Joe's Garage.  Your comparison was moronic.

But the short answer is... updating federal websites to align with current policy is not censorship or banning.  News flash... the IRS website gets updated to reflect new policy every  year.

So your question here was a 'stupid question':

Jack @6.1.55 ☞ When Biden was elected and changed the White House web page to reflect his agenda, was that censorship? 

Finally, on Christianity, you hold that an atheist PotUS removing all references to Christianity from federal websites is not censorship:

TiG@6.1.56 ☞ And, yet again, you would not consider it censorship if the USA elected a publicly declared gnostic atheist who then proceeded to ban all references to Christianity from federal websites?

What is it then ... removal of obscene words, removal of damaging rhetoric?

Not censorship.  How is this difficult?

So how would you defend it?   What would you argue as justification?   1st amendment?   It is okay because in your world federal websites are not really public websites ... websites of the people?

I am trying to imagine you defending the purging of Christianity references from all public federal websites by an atheist PotUS' EO.     Laughable, at the least.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court is not biased in favour of Trump?

I'm assuming you included that quote as having some sort of relevance to your question.  If so, I cannot see it. The purpose behind what I said in that quote is that the Dems are going to use the legal system to stymy Trump. Included in that, but not specifically stated because I assume that the average person is smart enough to understand it without spelling it out, is that the strategy behind the Dems doing so is primarily that their lawsuits will cost time, money and effort.

The most important of those is time. No one knows the future except God. Therefore, with lawsuits, Trumps opponents can slow down the amount of change they disagree with by tying his efforts up in court, which should be the obvious conclusion behind the meaning of what you quoted. They hope that the next election will be in their favor and so, do what they can through lawsuits to prevent whatever opposes their goals in the meantime. At least, that should have been a vastly more obvious conclusion than wondering if I was saying the Supreme Court was involved in any way. 

Saying all this, I anticipate the possibility that you will accuse me of avoiding your question. Avoid would be the wrong way to think about my response. In my view, your question is equivalent to my saying that rain is good because it causes crops to grow and you asking me that, because of that, am I saying that flooding of communities is good. 

When Trump does something that is illegal or unconstitutional such as trying to eliminate the right of jus soli, is it proper for Ds, et. al. to bring lawsuits to challenge this?   Would you applaud the effort?

Then, as I noted, your point is both confused and absurd.

Well, you keep agreeing with it while pretending I'm saying something else entirely, so I don't know what to tell you.

Removing perfectly acceptable content due to ideological disagreement is censorship.

Of course it isn't.  Content is updated all the time to reflect new government policy.  All such policy is in ideological disagreement with some segment of the American public at some level.

The fact that we are talking about public websites does not magically cause this to NOT be censorship.   That is just another rule you have made up.

The rule being made up here is yours, where you seem to think that these being public websites causes something to be "censorship" when it clearly isn't, would never be so in any other circumstance, and would not be considered such under any other president.

Implementing changes to be compliant with the CotUS and, in particular, the 1st amendment in response to a SCotUS ruling is NOT censorship.

Implementing changes to comply with any duly enacted legal directive is not censorship, even if that is an executive order.

Well that certainly is banning.

Ridiculous, for reasons already described.

But we are talking about censorship.   Are you now going to focus on the word "ban" and provide special little rules that redefine that word too?

You used the term before I did.  Or do you not remember what you post?  Not that anyone is surprised when you try to limit discussion.

And now we circle back to your utterly confused Italian Series A league table example. 

The only person that confused was you.

As with that example, the absence of particular books in a school library does not mean the books were banned.   And of course it does not mean censorship took place either.

We agree again.  Excellent.  Why are you still arguing about it?

It is a proper response to you pretending that government websites are privately owned 

Ah.  We're to the point where you stop pretending to care what was actually posted and just make shit up so you can pretend to win an argument against points nobody made.

Government websites are OUR websites.

Yes.  And they change with implementation of new laws, regulations, or guidance based on decisions made by OUR elected representatives.  

So your question here was a 'stupid question':

*sigh*  Victor Osimhen scores again.

Finally, on Christianity, you hold that an atheist PotUS removing all references to Christianity from federal websites is not censorship:

For about the 4th time, correct.  I'm frankly mildly surprised that hasn't happened already.  It is not censorship until they suppress other people using those references.  

What is it then ... removal of obscene words, removal of damaging rhetoric.

Why would it be any of those things?  Why wouldn't it simply be an update to reflect an ideological shift toward a more secular, less religious governance philosophy?  It's almost as though you imagine I would somehow be threatened by such a development.

 It is okay because in your world federal websites are not really public websites ... websites of the people?

That makes no sense whatsoever, but I guess it's in keeping with the rest of your points on this topic.

I am trying to imagine you defending the purging of Christianity references from all public federal websites by an atheist PotUS' EO.     Laughable, at the least.

You are trying to imagine the man you constantly criticize as apathetic somehow deviating from that established behavior pattern?   Seriously?  Again, you're just making shit up to distract that your points are a collection of completely indefensible Trump hysteria.

When Trump does something that is illegal or unconstitutional such as trying to eliminate the right of jus soli, is it proper for Ds, et. al. to bring lawsuits to challenge this?   Would you applaud the effort?

You didn't direct this to me, but I'm chiming in.

Yes. 

200%. 

It is not only proper, not only is it their job, it is their patriotic duty as the party in opposition to oppose actions they believe are in any way not in the best interests of their constituents.

One of the greatest dangers to any democracy is the tyranny of the majority.  Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, et al are our first line of defense.

Content is updated all the time to reflect new government policy. 

Of course content is updated.   Do you recognize that there is a difference between updating information regarding policies and changing federal websites to purge all references to a particular group of people through an EO.   Again, let's take Christians as the sample class.   Purging all references to Christianity from federal websites by an atheist PotUS via an EO is censorship.   It is not done to update federal websites with new policy information or to remove obscene or damaging language, but rather to redact all references to Christianity.  That is pretty much what censorship is. 

The rule being made up here is yours, where you seem to think that these being public websites causes something to be "censorship" when it clearly isn't, would never be so in any other circumstance, and would not be considered such under any other president.

You made up a rule that it cannot be censorship if it is a public federal website.   I did not make up a rule, I challenged your ridiculous rule.

Implementing changes to comply with any duly enacted legal directive is not censorship, even if that is an executive order.

Oh good, you invent another rule.   In effect this rule states that no duly enacted legal directive can possibly be censorship.   Nice attempt to categorically dismiss everything done by EO from being censorship.

We agree again.  Excellent.  Why are you still arguing about it?

Other than the fact that you did not provide an example of censorship?   I could list all sorts of acts that are not censorship.   Would you consider that to be relevant?   No?   Good.   Now do the math.

And they change with implementation of new laws, regulations, or guidance based on decisions made by OUR elected representatives.  

You continue to argue that federal websites change.   Of course they change, that is not in dispute.

It is not censorship until they suppress other people using those references.  

Repeating your earlier rule is not helpful.   Federal websites are public.   They are not the private property of the PotUS or government.   Redacting all words associated with a class of people, etc. because of ideological differences is pretty much textbook censorship.

Why wouldn't it simply be an update to reflect an ideological shift toward a more secular, less religious governance philosophy? 

So basically you chose the 1st amendment path.  Okay, currently our public websites are replete with Christian references.   You take an EO from an atheist PotUS who orders the removal of all references to Christianity from all public federal websites to merely be an innocent move towards more secular governance.   No big deal, nothing to see here.

I think this is an appropriate to time to note that you are delivering BULLSHIT.    I wish we could test this, because the likelihood of Jack Tx supporting a ban/redaction of all Christianity references from all federal websites via an EO signed by a new atheist PotUS with 'this is okay, no problem, nothing to see,no censorship involved here' response is about as likely as Trump ending the Ukraine war with a phone call.  IMO.

When Trump does something that is illegal or unconstitutional such as trying to eliminate the right of jus soli, is it proper for Ds, et. al. to bring lawsuits to challenge this?   Would you applaud the effort?

Rephrase the question in a manner that isn't loaded and I might answer. 

Obviously you will not answer.   Claiming that was a loaded question is a lame excuse.

Do you recognize that there is a difference between updating information regarding policies and changing federal websites to purge all references to a particular group of people through an EO.

Are you pretending an EO is not policy?

Again, let's take Christians as the sample class.   Purging all references to Christianity from federal websites by an atheist PotUS via an EO is censorship. 

Again, it just isn't.  The very idea is nonsensical on several levels.  That is especially true about references to specific religions on the websites of secular governments.  

By this reasoning, almost any implementation of policy change can be labeled censorship.  If President Biden had issued an EO directing the substitution of the phrase "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal alien", and all the websites stopped using "illegal alien", under your thinking we would have to label that as censorship.  The entire premise is ridiculous.

You made up a rule that it cannot be censorship if it is a public federal website.

Cite me.  Or apologize for misrepresenting me again.

Oh good, you invent another rule.

No, just stating an obvious fact. 

Other than the fact that you did not provide an example of censorship?

As a reminder, I am the one stating that no censorship is occurring.  So no, I will not be providing examples, as there are none.  I also will not be providing examples of dragons, as they're not occurring either.

I could list all sorts of acts that are not censorship.   Would you consider that to be relevant?

If updating government websites was on the list, then yes, certainly.

You continue to argue that federal websites change.

No.  Try again.

So basically you chose the 1st amendment path.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Okay, currently our public websites are replete with Christian references.   You take an EO from an atheist PotUS who orders the removal of all references to Christianity from all public federal websites to merely be an innocent move towards more secular governance.   No big deal, nothing to see here.

Correct.  Is that 5 times now?  I've lost count.  I'm not sure why such references would be there in the first place.

I think this is an appropriate to time to note that you are delivering BULLSHIT.

It's probably also appropriate to note you only curse in all caps when you realize you don't have a legitimate point. 

Are you pretending an EO is not policy?

You are really running out of tactics.   Another stupid question ... and non-sequitur at that.

By this reasoning, almost any implementation of policy change can be labeled censorship.

It depends upon the change.   However, by your reasoning any change of a federal website is ipso facto NOT censorship.

Cite me.

Okay:

Jack@6.1.49 ☞ If we really can't see the difference between government officials changing content on their own websites and "banning" words or "censorship", we are in much worse trouble than I had previously imagined.

Jack@6.1.55 ☞ Censorship would be attempting to stop other people from making such references on their own websites. 

Jack@6.1.55 ☞ Correct [responding to:  "A government can change anything on government-owned PUBLIC websites and this is categorically not censorship to you."]

You claim that the government can change content on their own websites and this is ipso facto not censorship; that censorship only applies if they restrict content on private websites.

If you want to rephrase your prior words, here is your chance.

You are really running out of tactics. 

Absolutely.  After "sane, logical, reasonable statements", I'm pretty much tapped out. I have "sarcasm and eyerolls" as a backup, but that's about it.  I don't have nearly the variety in my repertoire that you do.

However, by your reasoning any change of a federal website is ipso facto NOT censorship.

As long as it is their content, pretty much.

You claim that the government can change content on their own websites and this is ipso facto not censorship; that censorship only applies if they restrict content on private websites.

No.

Your inaccuracy stems from the statement that I have made some sort of "rule" exclusive to "federal websites".  I have made no "rule" and the point has nothing to do with the federal government.  The same state of affairs is true for the State of California or CNN or any other site.  Curating content they have created is not censorship, any more than JK Rowling deciding not to publish a book.

Censorship is the attempted suppression of other people's expression.  So you could have censorship in a comment section, for example.  Government agencies frequently open comment sections to professionals who work in fields where new laws have been passed and the new supporting regulations are being developed.  For instance, HHS might have a section on new rules for medical billing transparency where they would allow physicians or hospital administrators to comment on proposed regulations and processes.  Now, if the administrators of such a website were instructed to remove all of the comments describing a flaw in the Affordable Care Act for political reasons, you might have a case to claim censorship. 

It is not censorship when they remove content they created in the first place, any more than you taking down a blog article you wrote or a Facebook post you made.  That's just melodramatic nonsense that is only a topic because we're looking for a new condemnation for Donald Trump. 

Do you have some special meaning for censorship?   Because clearly Trump and his minions are banning the use of words reflecting DEI, transgender, etc.

I have already addressed this. Your post makes it clear that you are ignoring what I said. 

Removal of language that is vile, bigoted, threat to national security, up to the point of your example of genocide is not considered censorship.   Free speech has limits; language can be dangerous. Removal of language that reflects gender identification, etc. is NOT dealing with dangerous language but rather the disallowing of language that the current administration ideologically opposes.

Language, huh? Interesting. What metric do you use to distinguish between the two? 

Obviously you will not answer.   Claiming that was a loaded question is a lame excuse.

Do you know what a loaded question is?

No.

Fine, you asked for citations and now ignore the quotes of your own words.  

You have adjusted your main rule from censorship only applies when government censors private sites to:   It is not censorship when the government removes content they created in the first place.   

One counter example is all that is needed:

So when websites built during prior administrations describe the science behind climate change and global warming and details the problems with the production and use of fossil fuels it is not censorship (per your rule) if a new anti-science, pro fossil fuel administration redacts all references of same from PUBLIC government websites.

In general, when a leader assumes control of public (government) information and removes accurate, informational content that merely contradicts his rhetoric, that (per your rule) is not censorship.

Trump can change his policy pages all he wants.   But pages intended to provide accurate public information are not his personal domain.

You are obviously deflecting rather than engaging.

Distinguish between which two?   And why are you delving into operational factors and ignoring the principle of the argument?

Apparently you have decided to quip rather than respond with a thoughtful post.

You are obviously deflecting rather than engaging.

Okay. How?

Distinguish between which two?

The ones set out in 6.1.41

And why are you delving into operational factors and ignoring the principle of the argument?

This is a meaningless question without defining what you mean by operational factors and what you consider the principle of the argument to be. Until you answer that, it isn't possible for me to answer yours. 

Apparently you have decided to quip rather than respond with a thoughtful post.

It wasn't a quip. I've spent several minutes trying to decide whether explaining it to you is wort the effort. Conclusion. It isn't. [deleted][✘]

These monotonous long form exchanges between 2 or 3 people which last for days and over dozens of back and forth posts going again and again over the same ground are boring. 

Y'know John, that's a fair point.  

[✘]

[✘]

These monotonous long form exchanges between 2 or 3 people which last for days and over dozens of back and forth posts going again and again over the same ground are boring. 

Okay. And?

Well, your comment offers a prime example of speciousness. Is that what it was trying to achieve?

But you are not going to agree, so I am not going to detail each case where you attempt to mislead people. Let me just say that you are very good at building strawman arguments.

I will invite anyone who cares to, to read the words that Jack_TX has written and see if they can find the flaws in his arguments. There are several, some more obvious than others. 

Toodles.

Um, Thomas? Did you just make a bunch of ad hominem attacks on Jack without backing any of it up, rather than address his arguments, using the fact that he doesn't agree with you as a defense for doing so? And then ask someone else to defend you while making it sound doing so yourself is beneath you? 

Just asking. 

Toodles. 

Did you just make a bunch of ad hominem attacks on Jack 

No. I dismissed his arguments as specious. Read what I wrote. 

I have a life which comes before NT. 

Well, your comment offers a prime example of speciousness.

Translated... you can't find anything wrong with it other than deviation from prescribed liberal doctrine.

I'll give you one more to think about for the road.....   There are zero wise or open-minded humans practicing political tribalism.  It's for people who don't want to think.

Well, it is 10;40 PM and I just came in. 

Translated... you can't find anything wrong with it other than deviation from prescribed liberal doctrine.

Don't you wish.

When one alters facts to say something unfactual, one is rewriting history, otherwise known as lying.

One doesn't need to go that far.  One can simply carefully curate a limited set of accurate data with the intention of persuading recipients to follow a prescribed view. 

Yes. Which you are about to do.

Every day on this forum I read examples of this type of misinformation thinking,

Interesting how "misinformation thinking" is generally that which disagrees with your very left political views.

The initial thrust of your specious argument. The fact or not of my personal view has nothing to do with the speciousness of your argument. The fact that I might disagree with what I call misinformation thinking is not the basis upon which that classification is based. I base the classification of misinformation thinking upon the fact that the thinking is based upon provably false ideas. 

We have in this country a great service performed by actual journalists, people trained in the craft of sorting through data to get to the underlying facts.

We used to.  Not so much any more.

The vast majority of journalists and I disagree with you. 

There is no such thing as an "alternate fact." An alternate fact is an untruth.

Of course there are "alternate facts".   Also known as "additional facts".  

Examples:

• Fact:  Only 7% of BLM protests during 2020 were violent.
• Alternate Fact:  BLM protests accounted for over $2billion worth of damage during 2020.

• Fact:  Heather Heyer was killed while participating in an unlawful riot.
• Alternate Fact:  Heather Heyer was murdered when a white supremacist ran her over with a car in Charlottesville.

• Fact:  The Houston Astros won the 2017 World Series.
• Alternate Fact:  The Houston Astros illegally used a camera system to steal signs during the 2017 regular and post season.

This is spurious and apart from the point. Also, it is a, "...carefully curate[d] ... limited set of accurate data with the intention of persuading recipients to follow a prescribed view. "  Huh. Imagine that. 

The biggest liar in any conversation is the one who says "those are the facts".  There are always more facts, they just don't want you looking at those.  

I like people to look at all the facts. I don't think that I have ever made the claim that "those are the facts" because there is most always more. This is a distraction and a rabbit hole. 

Trump (assume his administration is included) has been railing against the MSM forever. Why?

Because it developed a level of liberal bias that has become comical.

Don't be silly. Donald Trump wants to lie and have people believe it is true. The media sites that he thought were telling people he was lying he called "fake news" because he knew that if he repeated it enough, people would start to believe it. If you don't believe me, try and prove that the MS/Legacy media is in fact incorrect or heavily biased. Most main-stream media outlets hew to the center and have mostly confirmed factual stories. They may make a few mistakes but on balance, there reportage is factual and correct. 

Millions of people follow him on social media and millions of people are led astray by his lies.

Not enough to make him president.  The Democratic Party appears to continue to live in denial about this.

Do you know how many followers donald trump has on X? " Mr. Trump has about 101 million followers on X, compared to nearly nine million on Truth Social, a number that has been growing since his election in November ." NY Times

When one attempts to follow the links to the history, one is taken to this page:

A non-working link on a webpage?   This is your evidence of "rewriting history"??  Are you even able to verify that the previously linked page in question contained accurate, unbiased information?  Are you even able to verify that page still exists?

The fact that it does not exist, as well as the references to "LGB" instead of "LGBTQ" is the tip-off. It is on the National Monument Website. Go there. 

I have absolutely no time left for you. 

That it is unlawful to execute unlawful orders is settled US law...

The initial thrust of your specious argument.

Well give us a quick example to refute the assertion....y'know, when a liberal viewpoint was "misinformed".

The vast majority of journalists and I disagree with you. 

I'm sure they do.  Or at least pretend to.  That doesn't change the fact that the standard practice for journalism is now bias.  Fox News describes itself as "fair and balanced".   Surely we're not believing that, are we?

Also, it is a, "...carefully curate[d] ... limited set of accurate data with the intention of persuading recipients to follow a prescribed view.

Hence the phrase "examples".  For every carefully curated data point supporting a liberal view, there is an alternative fact supporting the conservative view, and vice versa.  That does not mean either set of data is not factual.

I like people to look at all the facts. I don't think that I have ever made the claim that "those are the facts" because there is most always more. This is a distraction and a rabbit hole.

I didn't and do not accuse you of making such a claim.  The statement is simply a reinforcement of the idea that there are always additional facts.

Don't be silly.

Well he's not railing against media with conservative bias, now, is he?  And at this point it's laughable to suggest that mainstream media sources like CNN, NYT, or WaPo aren't left biased.  Just look at the outrage when the Washington Post failed to live up to that expectation during the last election.  Colbert's own audience laughed out loud when he suggested Caitlynn Collins and CNN were unbiased.  Just check MBFC.

They may make a few mistakes but on balance, there reportage is factual and correct. 

The whole point is that factual and correct can still be biased. 

Do you know how many followers donald trump has on X? " Mr. Trump has about 101 million followers on X,

Yes.  Sorry.  I wasn't clear.  The counterpoint was that the group of people who actually believe him is not enough to make him president.  Huge numbers of people who voted for him are completely aware that he is full of shit.  They chose what they believe to be the least bad option.  Believing Trump tells the truth is like believing Biden isn't senile.  There are not enough of those morons to win an election. 

The fact that it does not exist, as well as the references to "LGB" instead of "LGBTQ" is the tip-off. It is on the National Monument Website. Go there. 

Changing a government website is NOT "rewriting history".  Don't be melodramatic.

More specious commentary.

The hysteria keeps ratcheting up. When will the fever break?

Maybe when some realize how foolish the hysteria makes them look and no one cares about what they think.

But probably not

Maybe when some realize how foolish the hysteria makes them look and no one cares about what they think.

Well, first off, I am not hysterical and neither is TiG. I also note that you apparently have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. 

I would rather have been concerned about our democracy than to be of the "it can't happen here" club. If proven wrong, the historical ramifications of the former will be far less than the latter. 

And finally, unlike most situations, I will gladly accept being proven wrong and that my analysis of the current shit-show occuring in our nation is totally "hysterical". Right now, the news is making me more worried, not less. Right now, the government is actively reducing the amount of content available, all in the name of "Free speech," and listening to the wacko President speak doublespeak and rewrite/delete history that he finds troubling. The media is being censored. How on earth can this be seen as good when that is how authoritarianism comes into existence? Trump is a fascist heading towards authoritarian rule and he proves it every day. Every day.

Well, first off, I am not hysterical and neither is TiG.

Well, in a way, you are.

To try and continue to compare Trump to Hitler is the definition of insanity, or the other one........trying the same crap over and over and hoping to get different results. Did you not learn that this strategy was the reason why you lost the last election?

This bs is why your side is so unpopular today. 

BTW...Hitler did not have a system of checks and balances in Germany in the 30s, allowing him to gain the power he did.

The US does have those checks and balances. Pretty certain Trump won't be allowed to do anything near what Hitler did.

But go ahead and keep with the belief that he will.

Buy a vowel.

But go ahead and keep with the belief that he will.

You ignored what Thomas wrote and (of course) created a strawman which pretends he equates Trump with Hitler.   Yet another low-level, dishonest tactic.

Thomas (and his video) notes the similarities between Trump's acts and those of historical dictators and warns that theses similarities should not be merely dismissed but rather that Trump supporters should start paying attention.   There is no belief that Trump will emulate Hitler and achieve the same results but rather that measures to control communication, aggressively targeting and firing political opponents, galvanizing hatred against a group of people, framing everything in terms of national pride, patriotism, etc. are common tactics of historical dictators.   So don't be a frog sitting in a heating pot, pay some attention to what is going on.   These are NOT what a PotUS normally does and these are NOT healthy for our nation.

Your strawman arguments illustrate that you still believe Trump's rhetoric.

Yet another low-level, dishonest tactic.

Decoder ring activated..."I don't like that I was proven wrong, so I disparage the tactics" Good job. 

"There is no belief that Trump will emulate Hitler and achieve the same results but rather that measures to control communication, aggressively targeting and firing political opponents, galvanizing hatred against a group of people, framing everything in terms of national pride, patriotism, etc. are common tactics of historical dictators. "

Hair on fire response. Just like you claimed over and over and over and over and over that tariffs will irreversibly damage "international relations", none of that has come true. It if has, your left wing media will be harping it 24/7. They are not. Believe it or not....no one cares. Whatever you are claiming mighta, coulda woulda has not come to fruition, so just relax. If any of this happens, you MAY have a point. Until then, it is just over hyperbole. 

"So don't be a frog sitting in a heating pot, pay some attention to what is going on."

Paying attention and being perpetually triggered are two different things. 

You first

Hair on fire response. Just like you claimed over and over and over and over and over that tariffs will irreversibly damage "international relations", none of that has come true.

First of all, I have claimed that Trump's tariffs damage international relationships;  never have I claimed that it is impossible for them to be repaired over time (i.e. irreversible).   So you are yet again wrong.

Second, Trump's rhetoric alone damaged international relationships.   Actually imposing the tariffs worsened them.   It takes no work to read what Canadians are saying about the USA based on Trump's acts.    Get a clue.

You just provided an excellent example of how some are so blinded by Trump's demagoguery that they cannot even recognize the negative impacts of his acts.

So you are yet again wrong.

Nope. Not on this thread.

"Second, Trump's rhetoric alone damaged international relationships"

Imaginary in your mind

"Actually imposing the tariffs worsened them"

No they haven't. Countries understand politics.

"You just provided an excellent example of how some are so blinded by Trump's demagoguery that they cannot even recognize the negative impacts of his acts."

[✘] BTW....again, there have been no negative impacts, just a bunch of butt hurt.

[✘]

[✘]

Well, in a way, you are.

If that's what you think-- are you (bugsy) also "hysterical in a way"?

In a way...???

Maybe when some realize how foolish the hysteria makes them look and no one cares about what they think.

Come on.  They've been hysterical since 2015 and they still don't care how they look.  Why would they start caring now?

The hysteria keeps ratcheting up.

I'd love to dig into one of your posts, Sean. For example, you choose the word "hysteria" here. I'd love to understand why. That would be a peek into your ["thinking".deleted]

[✘] What's sad, here, is knowing that honest conversation about motivation is impossible. I don't know why. Perhaps you don't, either.

What's sad, here, is knowing that honest conversation about motivation is impossible. I don't know why. Perhaps you don't, either.

I've noticed that it does happen ...occasionally...on social media.

I think we're looking at a baby Hitler.  Hopefully our system is stronger than Germany's was. 

I think we're looking at a baby Hitler.  Hopefully our system is stronger than Germany's was. 

I would think more on the line of an Orban cum Putin

I would think more on the line of an Orban cum Putin

Which is exactly what the reactionaries want.

Genocide requires organization. It cannot be engaged in the very first days of a new regime.

It took time :

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

America's fascist regime is only a few weeks old. It would be premature to predict extermination camps. Or to preclude them.

Genocide requires organization. It cannot be engaged in the very first days of a new regime.

Correct.

Many on America's left have been pushing for the Jewish genocide for decades. The last two years on college campuses have shown how serious they are about it. 

So Trump's way behind schedule already.  

How about giving a comment that approaches reality instead of trolling along the phantasmagorical?

Define this "many" you speak of. How many is many.

Then prove that this " Many on America's left " is in fact pushing for "... the deliberate killing or harming of a group of people... ...to destroy the group or make it extinct ." (Google AI). UN and IJC

Further, prove " The last two years on college campuses have shown how serious they are about it . "

How about giving a comment that approaches reality instead of trolling along the phantasmagorical?

They don't dare show that they understand. The cognitive dissonance would be crippling.

How about giving a comment that approaches reality instead of trolling along the phantasmagorical?

The irony of that statement.

[✘] "Then prove that this " Many on America's left " is in fact pushing for "... the deliberate killing or harming of a group of people... ...to destroy the group or make it extinct "

"Further, prove " The last two years on college campuses have shown how serious they are about it . ""

As I figured, MSDNC, CNN, NYT, etc did not inform you of the non stop pro Hamas demonstrations on college campuses around the country. Does the term "from the river to the sea" ring a bell. That term was chanted many, many times during these protests/riots. If you did not know, the term implies the extermination of the Jewish people.

Try your google to look these things up. It can help you.

You made the claim. You provide the data to back that claim. I do not think that you can back up your claim, especially since you say right above that "all" is a more accurate word to describe the number of the Left (whatever that is, because that has no hard definition either) who are supposed to be in favor of genocide of the Jew's. 

America's fascist regime is only a few weeks old.

In case we were looking for examples of hysteria......

What if they had only one Jewish grandparent?

(They certainly wouldn't be considered "Part 'Aryan'"..???)

Some people see and hear only what they want to see and only that.

Some people see and hear only what they want to see and only that.

Ain't that the truth. 

Indeed. We have been telling some of our residents for years, and the informed have been filing 'warnings' about the lack of good, trustworthy character, and the 'eye for and 'eye' mentality traversing Trumpism for years. And still, we are beset by this cruel, inhumane, fixture in our presidential and national politics. 

Horrors trapped in the amber of time can repeat; when 'men' think to control strongmen turned loose in (and on) the world too long.

Some people see and hear only what they want to see and only that.

There even a name for that: "Confirmation Bias"

Threads 6.6 and 6.7 were removed for off-topic by author/no value/taunting. Get back to the actual topic of this article, please. Only warning.

[✘]

Not only is it hysteria, but a heaping helping of paranoia has been added onto the mix.

The majority of Americans agree with the steps that Trump is taking....to do the best for all.

Some will be hrt in the process, but cleansing America of the stench of radical progressivism and its destructive effects is necessary. 

Hysteria is not at play.   Rather we are witnessing a cultish blindness which manifests with people never acknowledging any wrongdoing by Trump.   This is effective demagoguery and it is unhealthy for our nation.

• Do you believe that Trump's tariffs will cause prices to rise when he was elected in part to lower prices?
• Do you believe that Trump's attempt to outlaw the constitutional right of jus soli is a proper use of his power?
• Do you believe that the USA should take Gaza, rebuild it, deport its population, and build a Riviera of the Middle East?
• Do you believe that Trump was right to fire inspectors general, to try to fire attorneys in the DoJ who were assigned to his criminal case?
• Do you believe that Hegseth was a responsible choice to lead the DoD?
• Do you believe that a PotUS should actively try to stifle media such as banning the AP from the White House because it will not exclusively call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America?
• Do you believe it healthy for our nation for the PotUS to gratuitously PUBLICLY threaten trade partners with outrageous tariffs before any private negotiation can take place?
• Do you believe the 2020 election was rigged and that Trump actually won?   Do you consider Trump rational for continuing to claim this utter nonsense?
• Do you support the USA pissing on Canada?
• Do you support the USA 'taking back' the Panama canal?

Hysteria

Very interesting word. Completely inappropriate for 99.99% of us. There's probably one or two who broke into tears, but no one I know.

Apparently, MAGA Demagoguery High Command has directed its minions to use "hysteria" systematically. You see the phenomenon here on NT. This is standard procedure for MAGA Demagoguery High Command: the systematic abuse of a word in conjunction with anti-MAGA, so systematically that people in general, and even anti-MAGAs themselves come to accept that it is reasonable to use it.

Frank Luntz created a monster, and even he recognizes the evil of that deed.

Not only is it hysteria, but a heaping helping of paranoia has been added onto the mix.

This exactly.

"The majority of Americans agree with the steps that Trump is taking."

Although I agree with you that it is a majority of Americans that agree, it will be pointed out to you that it is simply 70 percent of a CBS survey that does, which of course, does not equate to a majority of Americans, even though surveys are snapshots of what the entirety of a population believes.   In other words....a majority of Americans agree with what he is doing. 

"ut cleansing America of the stench of radical progressivism and its destructive effects is necessary. "

This is true, but their gravy train is coming to an end and they are not happy.

Do you believe that Trump's tariffs will cause prices to rise when he was elected in part to lower prices?

I'm going to echo what Drakk told you yesterday.

I don't know, nor do I care, much about tariffs. They do not run my life, nor should they yours. If there is a price increase, then I will deal with it, much like we have had to deal with the average 20 percent increase of goods that your side gave us the last four years, something you had no concern about then, but now....it's Truuuuump 

You do not know that tariffs are a tax on imports that are paid by the USA company which then passes this on to the American consumer??

Well, bugsy, now you know.

Do you support Trump unnecessarily raising consumer prices when one of the key reasons he was elected was to 'fix' our high prices?

So, no, but rather a blindly partisan rendering and total misconstruing of facts as they exist 

So, no, but rather a blindly partisan rendering and total misconstruing of facts as they exist

Didn't someone just complain of partisan jumping in with both feet?

I can't remember who that was.

You do not know that tariffs are a tax on imports that are paid by the USA company which then passes this on to the American consumer??

Reading is essential.

I said I did not know much. I didn't say I didn't know anything. 

I also did not elicit your unsolicited "explanation".

"Do you support Trump unnecessarily raising consumer prices when one of the key reasons he was elected was to 'fix' our high prices?"

Trump has been in office three weeks. Nothing you claim has come to fruition.

Again, you never criticized the last admin for the out of control inflation because they held the same ideology, but now, Truuuuuuump.

Give it a rest. 

[✘]

Trump has been in office three weeks. Nothing you claim has come to fruition.

You claim you understand that tariffs raise prices and that a key factor underlying Trump's election was that he was going to 'fix' high prices.   But you cannot bring yourself to even state as to whether or not you support his gratuitous, unnecessary tariffs and the inciting of a trade war.

As I noted earlier, this is a fundamental problem right now.   Trump supporters cannot even acknowledge the most obvious damaging actions by Trump.

TiG, just give it a rest.

It is WELL known you are fixated on prices now, but did not care that those same prices, and in addition, prices tariffs have nothing to do with, are up an average of 20 percent during your side's term. 

I don't care about a trade war. My life does not revolve around things like that. If I need to pay an extra 20 cents for a light bulb, then I will pay it. 

Trade wars come and go, both sides have generated/been a participant in them and we are still here. 

I think maybe something to fixate on is the billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars, of waste and fraud being uncovered by DOGE, but I feel you will not put much effort into it because the fraud that will be uncovered was a large part of your side for many, many years. 

It is WELL known you are fixated on prices now, but did not care that those same prices, and in addition, prices tariffs have nothing to do with, are up an average of 20 percent during your side's term. 

Yet again invented bullshit from you.   Instead of putting forth a thoughtful argument you invent the complete bullshit that I did not care about the inflation under Biden.  Nothing but one lie after another in your posts.

You refuse to acknowledge that Trump is taking actions with his tariffs that are the OPPOSITE of addressing high consumer prices.

Instead of putting forth a thoughtful argument you invent the complete bullshit that I did not care about the inflation under Biden.

Only by experience did we see you put out nary a post criticizing Biden's massive increase in inflation over the past four years, but for some reason, are infatuated by price increases that have not happened under Trump. 

I would say I am surprised by this, but.....

"You refuse to acknowledge that Trump is taking actions with his tariffs that are the OPPOSITE of addressing high consumer prices."

Your opinion, but once again, I don't care as I do not dedicate the majority of my life to what Trump says or does.

Only by experience did we see you put out nary a post criticizing Biden's massive increase in inflation over the past four years, ...

I had no problem noting that inflation was a result of the pandemic and a result of government spending and that Biden's spending most definitely contributed to inflation.   You continue to demonstrate that you have no clue of what I have written and my positions.

And yet again you respond to me and deflect from even acknowledging that Trump's tariffs are doing the OPPOSITE of addressing high consumer prices.   

I had no problem noting that inflation was a result of the pandemic and a result of government spending and that Biden's spending most definitely contributed to inflation.

Off handedly....maybe, but nowhere near the amount of times you whine about something that MIGHT happen with Trump. More so in one month than the entirety of Biden's four years. 

"And yet again you respond to me and deflect from even acknowledging that Trump's tariffs are doing the OPPOSITE of addressing high consumer prices. "

To paraphrase someone that believes they are important

"I do not opine on subject matter that I do not believe warrant opining on". 

Reason why I don't is because 

I 

don't 

care

I do not spend my entire waking day infatuated with something that will have little effect on me. 

One feeble claim after another.   Trump is making stupid moves on a weekly basis (sometimes daily).   Of course there will be more criticism of Trump than of Biden.   At least for those who can reason objectively.

I do not spend my entire waking day infatuated with something that will have little effect on me. 

This notion of 'I do not know' ... 'I do not care' ... and similar is such a transparent move.  Obviously you know that tariffs are bad for consumer prices and for international relationships but you refuse to even acknowledge that.  

Just pathetic, and everyone can see it plain as day.   Who do you think your are fooling with this 'I do not know / I do not care' nonsense?

[✘]

cleansing America of the stench of radical progressivism and its destructive effects is necessary

radical progressiveness delivered this country from the british aristocracy, just as it will from unconstitutional christo-fascism ...

The majority of Americans agree with the steps that Trump is taking..

Link?

CBS this morning claimed too much free speech in Nazi Germany caused the holocaust.  There's really no bottom to the idiocy.  

And the left will gnash their teeth wondering why CBS lost the 10 billion lawsuit to Trump

Margaret Brennan, as her role in censoring Vance during  the debate demonstrates, really does not like free speech. 

I just saw and it explains where we are at pretty well:

This is an absolute rock-bottom moment for the Legacy Media. According to Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan, the Holocaust happened because the genocidal Nazi regime, which defined totalitarianism for the 20th century, allowed too much free speech. How did we get here? The media is so committed to the narrative that “Trump is Hitler” that anything the administration does must be portrayed as fascist.

Hence, if VP Vance gives a speech urging the Europeans to live up their values on free speech, it must now be the case that free speech is a Nazi value. History must be retconned accordingly. Goebbels himself would be impressed by the audacity of this Big Lie!

You can see the hesitation on Brennan’s face and hear it in her voice, as she tries to expound on this chain of thought. She starts to realize the foolishness of her argument, but it’s too late for her to turn back, leading her into an absurd cul-de-sac. This represent the entire Legacy Media. Their pathological hatred of Trump has led them into a cul-de-sac of absurdity and irrelevance.

They have zero credibility left.

x

Here is a link to the Face the Nation Interview and transcript. Face The Nation 

From the Transcript

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about what happened in Munich, Germany, at the Security Conference.

Vice President Vance gave a speech, and he told U.S. allies that the threat he worries about the most is not Russia. It is not China. He called it the threat from within, and he lectured about what he described as censorship, mainly focusing, though, on including more views from the right.

He also met with the leader of a far-right party known as the AfD, which, as you know, is under investigation and monitoring by German intelligence because of extremism. What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies?

SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion?

We are, after all, democracies. The Munich – Munich Security Conference is largely a conference of democracies, in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak freely and provide your opinions.

And so I think if anyone's angry about his words, they don't have to agree with him, but to be angry about it, I think, actually makes his point. I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech. Whether you agree with him or not, I think the valid points he's making to Europe is, we are concerned that the true values that we share, the values that bind us together with Europe are things like free speech and democracy and our shared history in winning two World Wars and defeating Soviet communism and the like.

These are the values that we shared in common. And, in that Cold War, we fought against things like censorship and oppression and so forth.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: And when you see backsliding, and you raise that, that's a very valid concern.

We can't tell them how to run their countries. We are – he simply expressed in a speech his view of it, which a lot of people, frankly, share. And I thought he said a lot of things in that speech that needed to be said. And, honestly, I don't know why anybody would be upset about it.

People are allowed – you know, you don't have to agree on someone's speech. I happen to agree with a lot of what he said, but you don't have to agree with someone's speech to – to at least appreciate the fact they have a right to say it and that you should listen to it and see whether those criticisms are valid.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: I assure you, the United States has come under withering criticism on many occasions from many leaders in Europe, and we don't go around throwing temper tantrums about it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.

And he met with the head of a political party that has far right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that, that the censorship was specifically about the right.

SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, I have to disagree with you. No, I have – I have to disagree with you.

Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they – they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none.

There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany. They were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history.

I also think it's wrong – again, I go back to the point of his speech. The point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and intolerance for opposing points of view within Europe, and that's of concern, because that is eroding. That's not an erosion of your military capabilities. That's not an erosion of your economic standing.

That's an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this transatlantic union that everybody talks about. And I think allies and friends and partners that have worked together now for 80 years should be able to speak frankly to one another in open forums without being offended, insulted, or upset.

And I spoke to Foreign Ministers from multiple countries throughout Europe. Many of them probably didn't like the speech or didn't agree with it, but they were continuing to engage with us on all sorts of issues that unite us.

So, again, at the end of the day, I think that, you know, people give all - - that is a forum in which you're supposed to be inviting people to give speeches, not basically a chorus where everyone is saying the exact same thing. That's not always going to be the case when it's a collection of democracies where leaders have the right and the privilege to speak their minds in forums such as these.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary, I'm told that we are out of time. A lot to get through with you. We appreciate you making time today.

In this clip, nowhere does Rubio mention how Hitler and the Nazi party came to power, he spoke exclusively of the time while the Nazi party was in power. Once they got in power, they then clamped down on free speech. The whole runup period before, though, the Nazi Party was free to disseminate it's ideas however it saw fit. 

  When the  Nazis  came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed  freedom of speech  and freedom of the press. United States Holocaust Museum

I will stress this once again: Hitler and the Nazi Party did not arise overnight. Here is a good overview of how Hitler came to power. The Rise And Fall Of Adolf Hitler  Germany and the European Nations have a greater understanding of how Hitler came about and the effects of his rule. That is why they have the laws specifically designed to make it certain to the whole population that scapegoating and blaming others and the perverse attraction that these activities have for some is definitionally bad, even if it promises to build the countries stronger, even if the leader of the party says "I am the only one". That is precisely what Hitler did. Segue to the United States, and we have a prime example of a party and its leader saying the same things. I can imagine that those who were paying attention to what Vance had to say were hearing echoes of the past and that is why it produced such a visceral reaction in some. 

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with free speech. But one must remain aware of what is being said and effects of those words. 

nowhere does Rubio mention how Hitler and the Nazi party came to power, he spoke exclusively of the time while the Nazi party was in power.

So what?  Brennan is one who said "he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide."  Rubio rightly corrected her because that's insane. 

will stress this once again: Hitler and the Nazi Party did not arise overnight.

Has anyone, ever, said otherwise?  

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with free speech.

Way to go out on a limb there.  By all means, if you want to help Republicans, that's a great line to take. 

So what?

Because Rubio knew that it is easier to attack someone over what "you said they said" than what they actually said. She said " Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide. And he met with the head of a political party that has far right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that, that the censorship was specifically about the right ." 

There was room for disagreement, but he argued that she was implying that Nazi Germany had free speech, which she clearly was not doing. That is dishonest. If you are arguing the same thing, then your argument is dishonest also.

No, freedom of speech was not the same as it is in the US. The Nazi party was banned and Hitler was prevented from speaking in public until 1927 because he tried to stage a revolution (The Beer Hall Putsch) in 1923. After serving 7 months of a 5 year sentence,  he reorganized the party to concentrate on political ways to power instead of trying to seize it, but did not gain much traction until 1929 , when the Depression hit. Hitler and the Nazi Party took advantage of the economic stresses caused using the party propaganda machine.  He went out to spread his message, and more people bought it . Take out the Brown Shirts and it sounds pretty much like a standard political campaign of today. Add the fact that it was about retribution and lies, promises that he was the only one and you have amazing similarities to what is occurring right now. But this does not normalize Hitler or make Donald automatically a monster. 

My whole point with this is to show that it is not that far of a stretch to get from seemingly normal to king size asshole. Trump's entire campaign as far back as 2016 was based on grievances and that he was the only one who could fix them. Vance was arguing for a larger seat at the table for far-right parties with a anti-immigrant themes, and painting that with the free speech brush is disingenuous. These parties feed off of the same anger and resentment as authoritarian rulers  the world over. Vances speech had nothing to do with freedom.

[Vance] also met with the leader of a far-right party known as the AfD, which, as you know, is under investigation and monitoring by German intelligence because of extremism. What did all of this accomplish, other than irritating our allies? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion?

We can't tell them how to run their countries. We are – he simply expressed in a speech his view of it, which a lot of people, frankly, share. And I thought he said a lot of things in that speech that needed to be said. And, honestly, I don't know why anybody would be upset about it.

Secretary Rubio spun her question and ignored that our sitting Vice-President spent his "precious" time sitting down to talk with extremists in Germany under state investigation. That is a slap to the face of the country's leadership. It is a national insult to the people who do not support extremism of the type such a group bolsters. And Rubio knows this. What a coward to ignore the question and deflect away from the IRRITATION created by Vance (and Trump).

Vance was arguing for a larger seat at the table for far-right parties with a anti-immigrant themes, and painting that with the free speech brush is disingenuous. These parties feed off of the same anger and resentment as authoritarian rulers  the world over. Vances (sic) speech had nothing to do with freedom.

Emphatically. Vance is literally 'gone to Europe' to advance the same similar 'takeover' populism that just won in the United States. (Striking while the iron is hot!) Only a fool would not see the concerted efforts of Vance and Musk on this account. This practically screams: " Come join us in our movement to take over the world 'order.' " 

Let MIGHT make RIGHT. Something the world fled from because in the past it could not sustain anything but an infinity of bloodshed. Now, peace is on the ropes, from the likes of "strongmen" with dreams of domination.

Margaret Brennan, as her role in censoring Vance during  the debate demonstrates, really does not like free speech. 

Censoring... or legitimate fact checking?

Censoring... or legitimate fact checking

She turned his mic off during a debate to help her clown. 

but he argued that she was implying that Nazi Germany had free speech, which she clearly was not doing. That is dishonest. If you are arguing the same thing, then your argument is dishonest also.

NOw that's dishonest.  

Take out the Brown Shirts and it sounds pretty much like a standard political campaign of today. Add the fact that it was about retribution and lies, promises that he was the only one and you have amazing similarities to what is occurring right now.

Taking out the brown shirts and organized street violence is sort of a big deal, don't you think? Three weeks after assuming power he was encouraging state police to shoot communists on sight.  Trump was President for four years and your  right to free speech has not been impeded.  . Do you know how ridiculous it is to claim things are "amazingly similar?" 

nce was arguing for a larger seat at the table for far-right parties with a anti-immigrant themes, and painting that with the free speech brush is disingenuous.

Being able to discuss a political issue like immigration is the very core of free speech.  Germans were on 60 minutes bragging about they put people in jail for insulting people online.  Is that free speech too? Cal the VP an idiot, and get  a visit from police.  Healthy democracy, there!

 Vances speech had nothing to do with freedom.

Now you are off into Orwellian nonsense. 

I am not the Orwellian in this conversation.

Right...  A speech extolling freedom of speech  has nothing to do with freedom.  War is Peace. 

A speech in which one tries to disguise the intent, ie. to make European governments accept as moral and good the hatred and expulsion themed policies of the AfD, and make it look like one is talking about free speech is the example. It is specious duplicity and a shell game. Neither Vance nor Trump want free speech. They want lying made acceptable. They wish for support from the haters in European societies. European societies are under stress because of several factors. The AfD has a scapegoat and a plan all ready for the people who wish to blame immigrants for their grievances, instead of looking at the whole picture to place the blame on the actual causes and working to fix them. 

Humans, in general, want the easy way out. The less they, we, us, have to work and think and do, the better.  

So when a party is there with a ready answer and says they can "Fix it" the less analytical people might just say to go for it. This is especially true when the party plays to cultural predispositions such as religion and family and nationality. 

That said, Vances speech, without context, is a defense of free speech. But in context of all that was going on around it, it wasn't really about free speech. It was about letting a party spread hate against the laws of the sovereign nation. If we are going to continually say that we respect the right of countries to govern as they see fit, then we have to let them do just that. Germany has hate speech laws. Deal with it. And using the phrase,"enemy within," was just boneheaded.

 make European governments accept as moral and good

Is only moral and good speech protected then?  It's amazing. When Trump retweeted that supposed Napoléon quote about saving the country,  many liberals grasped that the fundamental problem with that quote is who decides what saving the country entails?  I thought,  great they are finally grasping the issue of speech restrictions. Who decides, indeed?

Yet, here we are, hours later dealing with arguments that "immoral" or hateful positions don't deserve protection. Who decides what is immoral speech? What right have you to impose your beliefs on others and keep them from arguing their beliefs? 

  d says they can "Fix it" the less analytical people might just say to go for it\

That's such a lazy, arrogant argument. I hate to break it to you but people who think differently than you have actually weighed your arguments and found them wanting.

t said, Vances speech, without context, is a defense of free speech

It's a defense of free speech. Period. As you are making clear, you don't like free speech thus your anger at Vance for defending it. 

. Germany has hate speech laws. 

Exactly and those laws are, in the most unsurprising twist of events ever, used to censor political debate. Because that's what always  happens. Self righteous people incapable of believing others can disagree with them criminalize it. "We have free speech, as long as you say things the government approves" is not free speech and a democracy can't exist without free speech.  

Whiff...... 

Sure. Talk to yourself.

By the way, Europe being a rather old set of countries fully understands how dictators come to be, even as they were 'present' and existing when democracies came into existence. European country are fully versed (in my opinion) of what is occurring on the soil and national interests of the United States!

I would say their general inability  to form stable, long lasting democracies despite their age argues the exact opposite.

Seriously? Nordic parliaments are the world's oldest.

C'mon Sean... 

Nordic parliaments are the world's oldest.

Nordic democracies are younger than the US. 

Nordic democracies are younger than the US. 

Peasant Republics can be traced back to the Vikings and continued into the Middle Ages, especially in Sweden. 

Sweden was an absolutist monarchy as recently as 1809. 

Read the histories of Jämtland or the Sámi. 

I would say their general inability  to form stable, long lasting democracies despite their age argues the exact opposite.

How does that compare to the U.S.?

Peasant Republics can be traced back to the Vikings and continued into the Middle Ages, especially in Sweden. 

I don't know how old their democracy is, but Denmark has been democratic...Finland...

In what's now Denmark the most notable peasant republic was Dithmarschen.

Of historical note on this day in 1500, the Battle of Hemmingstedt took place where John of Denmark and his brother Duke Frederick tried to defeat the peasants of Dithmarschen. 6,000 peasants defeated 5,000 common foot soldiers, 1,000 artillerymen, 2.000 armoured cavaliers and 4,000 German mercs.They flooded the land forcing the Duke's Guard into a single road where they had guns waiting. The locals used poles to jump the flooded ditches and killed most of the enemies not with their guns but by forcing them into the flooded ditches drowning them. 

Dithmarschen

Which hasn't existed for almost 500 years.

Denmark didn't become a constitutional republic until 1849.

So? American Southern Baptists supported forced segregation and systemic racism until 1995 when they also finally reversed themselves on Biblical rightness of slavery, human bondage!

Which hasn't existed for almost 500 years.

My point is it existed. Until now you didn't even acknowledge that.

Until now you didn't even acknowledge that

Read what I wrote again. It's why I specifically used the word "generally"

Do you think southern baptists are an independent country? 

As for Finland there were not really any known peasant republics. The Finnish people have always had a sense of self governance historically, being a very rural agrarian people.

Of historical note was Nuijasota in 1596 where the Finnish peasants rose up against the Swedes that ruled them then. The Swedes were demanding grueling taxes to fund their 25 year war against Russia. It was a poor brutal time for the Finns, with crop failures and the brutalities of an occupied land.

So? American Southern Baptists supported forced segregation and systemic racism until 1995 when they also finally reversed themselves on Biblical rightness of slavery, human bondage!

WTF would that have to do with anything, even if it were true?

Sean would have us believe that he actually imagines that government isn't an evolutionary thing, but rather something that appears, suddenly one day, fully formed.

Sean is a very smart guy. He knows, for example, that the Magna Carta was a key episode in the history of American democracy, despite being produced on a different continent, centuries before the American colonies were created.

He knows that there's no such thing as a "start date" for any governmental system. But Sean will never allow facts to interfere with a good argumentative stance.

Sean would have us believe that he actually imagines that government isn't an evolutionary thing, but rather something that appears, suddenly one day, fully formed.

No, Bob there actually is a start date to a government. The events that lead to it may in fact be influenced by events from years prior, but the actual start of a government can be dated.  The original argument was that Europe, by being so old, has some special knowledge about Democracy and dictatorships, which is, of course, nonsense.

Take France, for instance. Despite being old enough to have exposure to the republic of rome, France couldn't even form a Republic until after the USA did. And it was blood soaked disaster that ended in tyranny.  It's now on its 5th try to establish a republic.  Not much of a history of success to share, is there?

The reality is Europe should be humble enough to accept advice on democracy from a country that actually succeeded in building a successful one.  

And still the Southern Baptists have segregationists and purist haters within the Church leadership. Shame on the Shameless!

Just because something took a long time doesn't make it bad.

For one hundred and thirty years after the Civil War Southern Baptists voted not to renounce slavery or segregation and when they finally did, in 1995, it was still a close vote...

As for Finland there were not really any known peasant republics. The Finnish people have always had a sense of self governance historically, being a very rural agrarian people.

Actually I know very little about Finland's history. But I recently became interested in them as they always seem to be one of the top countries on vaious "Happiest Countries in the World" list. 

I researched the country a bit-- overall, at least In current times, they seem to mostly have very sensible values.

Take France, for instance. Despite being old enough to have exposure to the republic of rome, France couldn't even form a Republic until after the USA did. And it was blood soaked disaster that ended in tyranny.  It's now on its 5th try to establish a republic.  Not much of a history of success to share, is there?

Have you ever actually been to France?

Numerous times. Have you?

Did you have to travel there to learn what happened in the French revolution? Or that this this is their 5th attempt at a Republic since? 

And still there are white supremacist within the SBC. Why non-racists and non-segregationists put up with it (and don't leave if necessary) is beyond me.

I am just old enough to remember brutal forced segregation in my youth. I remember when non-whites could not go into the bank to cash their paycheck and had to have a white person do it for them, usually for a cut. I remember segregated restaurants and department stores where non-whites had to order through the back ally door and were not allowed to try on or return. I remember the first day our local swimming pool integrated and almost all off the white kids got out of the pool in protest. I remember grown men and women calling black children the N word out of pure hate and meanness. In another twenty years there will hardly be anyone left who experienced the bad olde days of Jim Crow. There is, no doubt, a contingent of MAGA who wish they would return ...

Sixty years ago... Twenty years ago... Recently

I remember hearing about a local skating rink that would not allow blacks to enter, but then it integrated during my youth. I do remember when my school integrated, nevertheless. I remember some of the white kids were so cool in their own way. And in high school 'everybody' was so cool about integration. I attribute a lot of good coming out of integration of schools. As kids got some of their questions answered about 'those' people on the other side of town!

I would really hate for 'us' to go back to a time when we knew little about the other "tribes" with whom we share community. People formulate lies, 'mysteries,' hatreds, and even longings for that which they are told they can not have. 

I could have sat at Woolworth Department Stores - "counters" (I guess, though it really never crossed my mind to do and eat there.) But I am fully aware that the rules related to doing so changed in my lifetime. 

Actually I know very little about Finland's history. But I recently became interested in them as they always seem to be one of the top countries on vaious "Happiest Countries in the World" list. 

My grandmother on my father's side was Finnish and my Step-Grandfather was Swedish. Growing up in MN there was a large Scandinavian population so I've learned a fair bit of all of it. I'm planning on a Scandinavian vacation sometime in the next few years. 

Just for giggles, check out the Finnish WWII action movie, Sisu, if you can. 

Sisu is the most joyous movie about killing Nazis turds since Inglorious Bastards. I highly recommend it also...

I've been watching a lot of ultra graphic violence in preparation for the coming summer of maga ...