The news was recently filled with stories of people comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, but are these comparisons ‘legitimate?’ By that, I mean, are they accurate and, therefore, warranted? Before we examine these questions, let me first share a few of the many stories on this subject — for those who may not have seen them:
Glenn Beck Compares Trump To Hitler
Another Hitler? How world leaders see Donald Trump
OK, now, whether you love him or hate him, the best story on the comparison of Trump to Hitler is probably the Glenn Beck piece. That is because Beck explains why the comparison is legitimate by pointing out that the people making these comparisons know history better than the average person. By that, Beck means they know who Hitler was before he became known for starting the Holocaust…
View original post 1,464 more words
The Rio Norte Line 
Here is an example of Hitlerian Brown Shirts…… and as always….it is the Socialists/Communists. Just as Hitler was a Socialist. Here in Chicago…. Obama/Hillary’s home thugs :
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/secret-service-rushes-stage-protect-donald-trump-ohio-rally-n537181
And here AGAIN in Kasich’s Ohio : More Brown Shirts !
Yep, exactly correct. You do not have to replicate the look to the least detail; you only need to replicate the purpose and tactics. It is in this sense that these comparisons are dead-on accurate (and have been for some years now).
To be clear the “Hitlerian” tactics are in the Hillary-Bernie……Kasich camp. The Uni-party trying to stay in power.
You see it in Trump’s campaign, as well…
No. I don’t.
That’s a false narrative which is starting to border on violent Hate speech ala Glenn Beck.
Well, we definitely disagree here. Trump most certainly does parallel Hitler’s speeches and actions. But so did Obama.
As for Beck: we disagree here, as well. I have many issues with him, but he is nowhere near hate speech. He presents the facts — in context! If that is hate speech, then you are siding with Trump’s promise to ‘punish’ his political opponents.
You are a Beck aficionado except on certain religious positions he takes ( and serious positions I may add and agree with you about ).
But ….. calling for stabbing Trump ( then walking it back as a “joke”…then saying it was meant for someone else ). Calling for people to see Cruz as a choice from God, calling Scalia’s death a sign from God ..GIVEN to us…to vote for Cruz……. all the while book-ending these various remarks with the same Hitler comparisons you are doing.
There is a sub-Meme now of …. Calling Trump Hitler. And I see you participating in what is actually to most popular meme at this time. As to promise to ‘punish’ political opponents,,,,,,, I haven’t seen or heard anything like that. Changing Executive actions ( which Cruz has promised as well) and making Mexico “pay” for a wall and changing Trade Deals with China and Iran are his main themes.
Obama and Paul Ryan and the Complicity of what has become the Washington Uni-Party are Hitleresque. And Bernie Sanders pointing his finger and saying out loud “If the Congress doesn’t do what he wants he will do it himself ” thus bypassing COMPLETELY the separation of powers….is most Definitely Hilter-esque.
The Signs are there…..and virtually NO ONE is picking up on them or mentioning a Damn thing about them !! The Socialist Riots ( “Protests” ) are an example ….. I brought them up in yet another ” currently Meme-appropriate… ( Beck-approved) ” post. And violence has been escalating …trying to shut up Trump and thus his supporter’s free speech……. THAT is Hitler-esque. And BLAMING the Socialist ( Hillary-Sanders-Rubio-Kasich-Bush) inspired mobs actions on Trump and his supportersis…….. well it is Progressive to the highest degree. And that is the other “Meme” being spread around.
Sorry, but I just have to call it out for what it is. In many ways exactly the same Meme as “America deserved to be attacked on 911 and etc by muslims because of their—— ” You can fill in the blanks, you know the Mantra.
Don, Beck did not call for stabbing Trump or walk it back. The media said that, but Beck was talking about Stew, his producer. I heard it live when it happened. It was NOT about Trump. Just like Palin never said she could see Russia from her back yard, this is a case of people accepting lies.
As for Cruz being chosen by God: I agree with you, that is troubling. But that is Beck, not Cruz.
The Scalia thing is yet another case of people running with half the story. Beck was openly wondering (not directly asserting) whether or not Scalia’s death may have been a ‘shaking’ intended to wake us from our stupor. Personally, I don’t know, HOWEVER, on this point, it is Scripturally sound to wonder. God has often used such things to wake His people and turn them back to Him.
Now, if you have not seen Trumps video where he said he would change the law so people can sue the press if they do not like what is printed about them, or offered to pay the attorney’s fees for any supporter who punched a heckler int he face, I’d have to ask where you have been? I can post them for you, if necessary.
Similarly, you seem to be seeing others exhibiting totalitarian tendencies, but you are excusing Trump when he says “I will!” Where does he mention Congress in any of his “I wills?” And when he says ‘we,’ he is using the ‘royal we,’ as in ‘ I am we.’
As for no one picking up on them: I trust you are not counting me in that number as I have been pointing out the tendency in MANY people — on BOTH sides of the isle — for years! At times, you have even been among those questioning me for doing so. So we agree here. And notice: I NEVER said it was ONLY Trump doing this. I just said the comparison is valid — as it is against a host of others in the political world.
Now, as for this notion that I am in lock-step with Beck and that either of us are trying to shut Trump up. I would have thought better of you (at least, I would hope for better form someone I admire as much as you). Alas, we are all human. BECK HAS DONE NO SUCH THING (and you would know this if you listened to him). In fact, Beck has said that, if he wins even the majority of the delegates (not even the 1200-something necessary) and if the GOP takes the nomination from him, he will be done with the GOP. Beck has argued that Trump is a Liberal progressive (and he is) and that we should NOT support him (and I agree), but Beck has also said — LOUDLY — that if the GOP picks him, he needs to be the candidate. Beck has also defended Trump’s right to speak — MANY TIMES! So this — honestly — is a baseless charge on your part.
As to Blaming Trump as using the Tactics of the Left ( Both Progressive and Hitlerian)….here is an article by Jeffry Lord.
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/03/are-cruz-rubio-and-kasich-siding-with-the-violent-far-left
I’ll have to look at the Beck “stabbing” thing again then. Don’t agree at all about the Scalia affair….that was pretty clear…..and Very inappropriate and quite strange.
The fact that there have been violent hecklers ( two at least which were found to be former Felons….with ties to the Left ) long prior to this recent spate of “protests” proves the tactic. what we see has become escalated and calculated to shut him and his supporters up.
Reacting by lawsuits and punching is not good. I agree 100 %.
However those “early” incidents were begun with those “hecklers” punching Trump supporters…..how easily those who don’t like Trump or want to shut him up “conveniently” forget that.
Simply put this has been an escalation of “protest” and disruption with the intention to shut Trump and his supporters up. Now THIS is a topic worthy of TRUE investigation and exposure from the first incident to these latest. THAT would be true journalism and true editorial integrity.
Instead we get…. as I said…. the repeated “meme” of “it’s all caused by Trump” ( Progressive-Alinski tactic of Marginalize the target/opponent and victim of attacks) ……and the concomitant phrasing either in accusation or question form…..of associating Trump with Hitler.
When what we have is a CLEAR association of Rhetoric invoking lawlessness….. Bernie Sanders / Hillary and now Kasich ( see below)…..mixed with obvious political mob violence supported by these same people. And NO ONE ( you included) is pointing out the OBVIOUS…… that these poeple are acting EXACTLY like the Nazi brown shirts did….they are using Political speech that sounds Virtually Identical to Mussolini and Adolf.
It’s all there to see…..and EVERYONE is silent …. and deflects ALL of this to Trump. You included.
Kasich promises AMNESTY push in first 100 days
OK, first, you and I are not enemies. I hope we can BOTH remember this? 🙂
Next, I wrote to a specific topic: is the comparison between Trump and Hitler legitimate. As I have shown, the answer is yes.
Now, as to the attempts to shut Trump up: this is also similar to Hitler’s early years. Fascism and Communism are BOTH creatures of the Left (American left/right spectrum, not European). They hate each other — even today. In Hitler’s day, they fought violently against each other. In Germany, Fascism won, but in Russia, Communism won. Now, Hillary/Sanders are open border types, which makes them Communist in nature. Trump is a nationalist socialist, which makes him fascistic in nature. So the violence between the two camps shouldn’t be a surprise: it should be expected.
The problem we have here is that some are attempting to separate and shield Trump from this — as though he is somehow a victim. He is not. He is just as guilty as the other side (which is the left/right divide between socialism in Europe). Trump represents the right wing fascistic branch of socialism whereas Hillary/Sanders are the left wing Communist branch. But make no mistake, BOTH are socialist in nature (or Progressive — they mean the same things). This is why I do not see Trump as an ‘innocent’ in any of this. As I see it, he’s just on the losing end of the fight…for now.
And here AGAIN a second time in Kasich’s Ohio…… more “Brown Shirts ” :
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-calls-protests-chicago-rally-planned-attack/story?id=37601079
And though I am a LONG-TIME Campaigner and Donater to Ted Cruz….. From the beginning….. THIS challenges my support of Cruz…… thinly disguised “Obama Speak”…… VERY VERY disappointed in Cruz over this. There is NO excuse for Socialist violence…period…end of Story. This is NOT being Constitutional on Cruz’s part at all.
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/ted-cruz-reacts-to-violence-at-trump-rally-642733123695
AGREED!
But then, this is why no man is perfect: because we have no angels to rule over us…
??????
No one in this race is perfect, not even Cruz. He just happens to be the best candidate — mostly because he has an actual history of doing what he says he will do.
I didn’t know if you meant the angels looking over Cruz…..or in general, looking over the USA.
The USA brother. I do not think Cruz is some sort of God-ordained savior. He’s just a man and, like all men, he has flaws. I only support him because, of all the candidates, he is the ONLY one with a history of confining himself to and defending the Constitution. If he ever breaks with that, I’ll abandon him, too — like all the others.
OK, the USA. Yes his Constitutional stance has to be genuine. Have you looked at Levin’s TV this week ? He said this as being the SOLE reason for us needing to elect Cruz which I agree 1000% with. Cruz’s blaming of Trump for Communist Union thug Mob riots is disturbing because he is using Progressive language and tactics.
As such….the “justification” factor comes in. Cruz is obviously very intelligent. Is he doing this from some “blind spot” in his understanding ? Or some calculation ….if from the latter, then it shows association with those forces destroying the Constitution. If from the former….. well, I’ll let you fill in that blank.
I have not decided about Levin TV. I have little time these days. Plus, while I LOVE Levin in writing, I find him difficult to listen to. His on-air persona is — TO ME (in my opinion) — beneath him. I think it is intentional, for ratings and entertainment value. But nevertheless, it makes it hard for me to listen to. He is smarter than he plays on the air (you know what I mean?)
As for Cruz blaming Trump for the Communist attacks: see my previous comment. IF, IF, IF Cruz meant this in the way I described, then he is correct. In fact, this violence is to be expected, and who better than a Cuban exhile to know? But then, the average American doesn’t know enough to understand (which is where the low information voter comments come in — and again, accurately).
Look, Don, this is all a mess, and it is a mess of the Communist/Fascist Progressives’ making. They have dumbed the whole nation down to the point where people who DO know better (like you) are getting caught up in the emotion of it all and not taking time to think. You know the history here. I know you do. You helped teach it to me. So you know the Commies and NAZI’s are enemies, but still Socialists. It is like the Republican/Democrat Progressive war. In fact, it is the same fight: Democrat Commies vs GOP Fascists. Violence ALWAYS follows these two groups. The real danger comes AFTER one of them wins and they turn against their supporters and the rest of the nation.
So, IF Cruz is speaking from this understanding, then he is correct — but he’ll still lose. he will lose because the rest of us out here are too ignorant to know he is correct, and those of us who know better and could help educate are going to get caught up defending ourselves by defending our candidates who fall under Cruz’s condemnation. Tribalism is making the already ignorant into just plain stupid, and we can’t cure stupid 😦
Nonetheless.
A post/article outlining the history of the fascisti di combattimento, the REAL brown shirts, and the Bolshevicks compared with the attacks on Trump and his supporters would go a long way towards exposing a Truer and more complete version of actual ( rather than implied ) history compared with recent events.
It would be HONEST.
It feels rather strange that I have to mention that not a SINGLE event for ANY candidate has been interrupted with violence from ANY Trump supporters.
YET!?
But I understand the need to repeat the definitions and history of the Communists and Fascists. I am already working on it.
By responding with “YET….you are fueling and feeding a narrative rather then directing it.
I gave a fact. And a Clear trend in violence by Clinton/Sanders and probably abetted by the Rove RINOs….and you target Trump….again.
At this point the dialogue has veered from reportage and “concern”…..to dangerous tendentious intention.
I wrote this post BEFORE that violence — AFTER Trumps people had started hitting protesters. You seem to be willfully ignoring this in your defense of Trump.
Like I said: YET!
https://scontent.fhsv1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/945501_684193988387071_6678325129285657119_n.jpg?oh=6ed4602a4f71bd26be7734cc33589f6b&oe=578F953D
Yes. But NOW there has been Exteme violence from the Hillary-Barnie-Rove side.
Which screams for a response.
Odd how things happen. I was reading around and checked my e-mail and a friend had sent me this article.
How the Media is “Hitlerizing” Trump…..also with very dark implications. I would add : the Media MIXED with Politicians and Social media and blogging.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/13/what-that-trump-security-moment-does-to-a-campaign/
Once again, it is not JUST Trump. Everything I wrote about Trump can be found in Hillary’s and Obama’s campaigns, parts of it in Romney’s, McCain’s and Bush’s and a lot of it in Clinton’s. This is because they are ALL progressives.
Trump is NOT innocent — he’s just not the only guilty party is all.
Then write about those OTHERS…..and not Trump.
It is not intellectually honest to Headline about Hitler and Trump…..then briefly mention others within context, or when challenged via commentary.
It is just a repeat of what the Media and Beck are doing…. a piling on. Because IF you really believe this about the others, then to not HIGHLIGHT them on their own FOR their actions without then tying it back to Trump is a form of abetting the real Communist-fascist violence on their part.
Of Value would be to SAY it about Hillary and Sanders for instance. And not as an adjunct to Trump. Give them the same exposure and analysis….it is THEIR people doing this after all. And they WILL do it against Cruz if he is the nominee.
NO! If the shoe fits, Donald gets to wear it. And in this case, THE SHOE FITS! And it is PERFECTLY honest to mention Trump in a post about TRUMP. What is fallacious is to bring in red herrings like Hillary and the GOP and them argue that Trump is innocent by comparison. That, my friend, is something the Left does — not people grounded in reason.
But it also fits Hillary, Sanders, Obama, AND most the GOP establishment (and I have said so).
What I am not understanding is why you are defending Trump when he clearly belongs to this group?
Don, with respect (and I am being as sincere as I can be here), I think you have too much vested in Trump and/or the GOP. I’d BEG you to step back and look at this again. You have been talking about Hillary, Sanders and the GOP establishment this whole time (and Beck) — but never once looking at the specific points I laid out about Trump. THAT IS FALLACIOUS REASONING! My post was about Trump and the comparison to Hitler. I explained why it holds (and it does). And you have argued “But they do it more” this whole time. My friend, if you have a pile of dead animals, then you have not resurrected the dead skunk by screaming the fish stink more. The same applies to Trump: he is NOT innocent or a victim simply because Democrats have been meaner.
But then, I think there is a part of you that knows and realizes this. As graciously as I can, and with a great deal of true respect, might I suggest that you are reacting from fear? You are afraid because — deep down — you know there is little difference between Trump and Hillary and Obama and you understand that, if he is nominated, it means the end of the GOP and the American experiment. Now, I might be wrong, but if I am, that carries implications I do not even want to consider about you — MY FRIEND! So, for now, I am going to chose to believe you simply have to believe Trump is better than his history gives you reason to believe — for the hope of all we both love about this nation…
No. You haven’t said so. Not in the manor I have explained.
What continues to hold is your abetting the violence caused by REAL fascist activists. What continues to hold is your aping of the Media.
And now you are using Straw men and pedestrian-psycho talk to avoid the obvious. That you refuse to address the Originators of this violence and their Political Candidates pushing it.
So now who is the one demanding others say things the way they want them said? 😦
Perspective is a wonderful and useful thing.
I am suggesting that a different editorial perspective aimed at those Committing the violence, and those Candidates that support them……and the historical examples which they are emulating would be both honest and informative .
It would serve as a balance.
Title :
**Are Historic Comparisons of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and their supporters recent Violence at political rallies to historical violence from communists and fascists Legitimate? **
Replying here because I’m sure you’ve noticed the thread gets long and “stingy” and I can’t then tell if I’m responding to the correct reply button…..and no I haven’t started ‘happy hour’ yet….it’s just a failure of my eyesight or some such… :- ).
No we are not enemies.
But I must point out a back-track on your rhetorical usage of obvious Progressive tools.
– First the artificial divide between fascism and Communism…..communism is fascism is socialism. You do say they are of the left. But the false distinction between any “right” or “left” has been used as a divisive and deflective tool by the Progressive left. Thus;
– when you use the phrase Right wing Branch of….and Left wing Branch of…you are legitimizing the false narrative created for us by the Communist/Socialists.
– It is about CONTROL.
Now ideologically speaking Kasich-Rubio-Hillary-Sanders as the uni-party are attempting to maintain their Control….and the Democrats to Increase their Control by going around the Constitution. Whereas the GOP attempts to increase by standing aside and abrogating their Constitutional duties to stop the destruction by using the Balance of Power enshrined within the Founding documents.
Of issue is whether Trump is of this second group. Whether he views Constitutionality as the success of various trade negotiations and a free exercise of Business without regulatory restraint. Secondly whether he also views the Executive power as a mechanism to affect changes unilaterally as Obama has. These I see as Legitimate questions. Because they get at the heart of the Constitutionality issue…..and as it relates to Business enterprise….. how does this comport with Equality of Opportunity as a goal, rather than equality of outcome.
So I see Trump as believing his is addressing this later issue. Whereas I see ALL the other candidates ( EXCEPT Cruz) as ideologically the exact opposite. They are for MORE CONTROL to affect the OUTCOME. That outcome being either on the National or International stage.
My view is that Cruz and Trump are more aligned than all the other candidates Dem or Repub. They are far apart from each other on the axis……but they are somewhat removed from the basic ideology of all the rest.
Thus…. when you ascribe recent events as a kind of “Street Brawl” among relative ideological equals, I think you are missing a much larger picture.
“Thus;
– when you use the phrase Right wing Branch of….and Left wing Branch of…you are legitimizing the false narrative created for us by the Communist/Socialists.”
If this were a conversation between casual observers, AND I had not taken great pains to note the distinctions, I might agree with you. But this is neither a conversation between the uninformed, nor have I been remiss in defining things. You and I BOTH know the differences here, and I have stated them. SO I do not agree with your assertion that I am supporting this artificial divide. In fact, you know better. I have spent a great deal of blogging time explaining the differences. But, if it helps, the nut-shell difference is one likes open borders (Communism) and one likes nationalism (fascism). Other than that, not a whole lot of difference. As you say, it is all about controlling others.
Now, as for how you see Trump: I respectfully disagree — STRONGLY! Trump has NEVER — not one time in his history — shown that he has even read the Constitution, let alone feels constrained by it. On the contrary. His history does not suggest an alignment with Cruz’s ideology, but with Hillary’s and the rest of the Leftists. He has openly advocated for THEIR policies. He has openly advocated for the same type of authoritarian controls. He speaks in the same terms (especially the narcissism of Obama). So, sadly, I am at a loss to see how or why you are aligning him with Cruz when he is clearly in the camp with Hillary/Sanders and the GOP elite.
Actions, my friend: actions, not words (or even reading our desires into his words). 🙂
Casual readers DO access comment threads. And take away much from them. They are an opportunity to EMPHASIZE the truth.
The difference in example…..which is actually an Oppo-same rather than an opposite….is the Stalin INTERNATIONAL Socialism versus the Hitler NATIONAL Socialism. Which even then turned out to be a false distinction when Adolf invaded Joe Steel’s domain. THIS is the larger Truth that should be expressed….even in commentary.
Trump may be authoritarian that’s true. But that is very different than Communist-fascist-socialist. To equate his National concerns with Nationalism also may have some grain of Truth. But viewed through the stencil of American labor the only alternative is Globalism the way the wheels have turned at this point. The very reason… ( Perhaps !)….that Cruz stepped in it with the TPA 500% increase in H1b visas.
I know he’s walked that back. I’m just saying that the dialogue wrt actual events has been structured now so the ONLY positions are opposed to or support the “internationalization” of labor forces and/or reduce wages. Thus to take a Stand one must of necessity appear Nationalist or Globalist.
To change perspective and change course….one must first put out the fire. Otherwise there is no REAL and genuine addressing of the issue. It is here that Cruz is weak. Because the Constitution does not address itself to those issues. It is fundamentally a structure which says hand-off wrt to the economy. As it should be. But the forces that be….for 100+ years have so warped things that government and “economy” have become identified as one and the same…..and legislation has served to support this error.
So when the American worker….and a politician want to right the ship…..they are confronted with taking on the Leviathan of interconnected government-business and long established international “deals”. Any attempt to cut to the chase appears Nationalist…..and any attempt to change through negotiation and management appears Globalist.
Radical Organized Left targeted Trump from Day one….. I would ad the Establishment did too. And they targeted Cruz mostly by lack of coverage but now on his Christianity.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/03/13/reality-check-organized-left-had-it-out-for-trump-from-day-one/
Since When ? Indeed !!
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/13/judge-jeanine-the-left-will-stop-at-nothing-to-prevent-free-speech/
A Chicago Cop says Bernie and Hillary Supporters were far more violent than the Media reported. Really ?
Imagine that !!! ………. I’m gobsmacked.
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2016/03/so-much-for-free-speech.html
Three arrested ( at least one an Illegal Alien) for pulling a Gun on a Trump supporter:
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/31419153/update-3-arrested-for-pulling-gun-on-donald-trump-supporter
National Review :’ White working class communities deserve to die’. Of course that isn’t racist because the Elite republican doyens are the one’s saying it…..and they are …”Conservatives”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/12/national-review-writer-working-class-communities-deserve-to-die/
Don,
While these things may be true, none of them are relevant to the subject of my original post. Frankly, this is akin to the Left saying it is Bush’s fault. Your attempts to distract are just another form of the same logical fallacy. They are also close to what you accuse me of doing when I attack Limbaugh (i.e. complaining because Limbaugh doesn’t say what I want him to — the way I want him to say it?).
You are better than this. I know you are. So, if you disagree with me about Trump, then show me where I am wrong on the merit of my argument about Trump. Leave Hillary and Sanders out of this one. I’ll get to them in due course. BTW: You don’t like him, but Beck has started to turn his guns on Hillary — including all the people who have mysteriously died around her and her husband over the years.
They are entirely relevant.
They show a pattern of violence Towards Trump supporters even away from rallies. They show the extent of the Hillary-Bernie violence at the rally and they show the racist Hate-speech directed at Trump supporters by the GOP Establishment.
I await your Post on the Hillary-Bernie- Soros ( Kasich is in there too) inspired Hitlerian fascist incitement of the Anti-Trump mobs ( excuse me— “Protestors” ).
To say that violence is because Trump is akin to Hitler is like saying it was Bush’s fault as I’ve already out-lined in detail. Leave Hillary and Bernie OUT OF THIS ONE ???? It is entirely their doing…their Backers and supporters who DID this.
And BEFORE they started, Trump was offering to pay to defend HIS people for hitting protestors in the face. So fine, I’ll play your game:
TRUMP DID IT FIRST! TRUMP DID IT FIRST!
Poor Hillary and Sanders are just defending themselves.
(see how silly it sounds?)
Don: Sorry to break into this conversation, but I wrote a blog post on this yesterday so it is quite fresh in my mind. Bernie and Hillary, and Soros, spring from the same Collectivist root that the Nazis grew from. The use of street thugs in Chicago and elsewhere by our Lefty brethren is also not surprising, given that Mr. Soros has been rumored strongly for decades to have been a Nazi collaborator during WWII.
Thuggery is a long standing Socialist/Progressive/Communist strategy and the desperation it shows vis a vis this election cycle belies the Big Media claims that Mr. Trump’s candidacy will sink the GOP for a generation. If that were so, the canny Clinton Machine would be savaging other Republican candidates to clear the way for a Trump cataclysm in November.
So, as it has ever been, the violence is being funded and led by the descendants of the National German Socialist Party, the Soviets and Mao’s China. Progressivism is Marxism with a thin American mask, and that mask is slipping!!! CDE
CDE,
True, but those who are trying to separate Trump from the rest of the Progressive cabal on the Left are wrong. His history and the policies he has suggested place him firmly in the same camp. So how does one point the finger at Hillary et al without also pointing it at Trump?
The only way anyone can honestly do so is if they are protecting the GOP over the nation — which places us smack in the center of Washington’s farewell admonishment about Parties.
Thanks Charles. You don’t ever have to apologize for joining our conversation ! It is public and intended for just that.
Agree with the connection BTW. Also Soros is Kasich’s 3rd largest Donor !!
Don/Black: As a lifelong libertarian, I register as an “Independent” and have no illusions about the GOP’s willingness to do anything to role back 125-years of systematic and often successful attacks on the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence by the Progressives/Marxist/Democrats. But I see no obvious alternative to Mr. Trump if Mrs. Clinton is to be denied the White House for a third Obama term. The likely coat-tails of a Clinton victory could recreate the dynamics of 2009, with the Progressives holding the Presidency and both houses of Congress. That will be potentially cataclysmic if it comes to pass.
Who is the alternative to Mr. Trump??? At this point, I see none. Please enlighten me, Gentlemen. CDE
CDE,
I know that the GOP uber ales crowed will disagree with me, but I do not see any difference between Clinton and Trump. maybe you could enlighten me as to what part of Trump’s history indicates he will not advance the same agenda only — perhaps — with an even more authoritarian attitude than we’ve seen from Hillary or Obama?
Perhaps without knowing it. You are expressing EXACTLY what the Establishment GOP is saying.
Fascinating. Your arguments are supportive of BOTH the Hillary establishment and the GOP establishment re: Trump.
Whodathunk ?
Yeah, who would have thunk you’d renounce reason to support the GOP over the good of the nation. Sad.
As for the rest of those reading along — the few who still cling to reason — they are well aware that I can critique one person without that being a forced commentary on another.
Don, you have been trying to do that this entire thread and — frankly — it is very ‘Hitleresque’ of you: to put words in your opponent’s mouth and then act as though he really said them. Do you hate Hillary that much: that you would abandon all pretense to reason or principle?
Supporting Trump and Cruz is decidedly NOT supporting the GOP. The GOP hates both and has said it prefers Hillary……in multiple statements.
You are critiquing one side entirely and have left the Progressive Democrats COMPLETELY off your Radar screen. Again similar to the GOP.
Chuck,
I agree 100 % !! And I think a Trump / Cruz ticket would be the best. I think that Ticket would both beat the Socialists and would address The Economy and the Constitution at the Same time.
Don,
If Cruz accepted a VP from Trump, then he would prove he is as unprincipled as Trump and — if I’m correct about the mood of the nation — you will STILL get Hillary as President. People are tired of dishonest leaders — no matter what letter is after their name.
And right here, with this statement, you sound like what some call “the Trump-bots”.
Accusing me of supporting Trump while you are in the middle of a full-fledged defense of Trump is…well, it’s disappointing. But I get it: you want to beat Hillary so badly, you are willing to support whatever the GOP nominates. Me? I’m trying to convince people not to nominate a male version of Hillary while there’s still time and a chance. You? You are already calling me names because I refuse to support Trump.
And you REALLY think, with the way you are treating me, that the GOP is going to be able to win back the TRUE Constitutionalists in the Party to support Trump?
Read it again. Sound like…. as in using the same rhetoric except for Cruz instead of Trump.
If Trump picks Cruz….it proves Trump is a phoney ( to the Trump-bots).
If Cruz accepts … it proves Cruz is unprincipled ( to the Cruz-bots).
Trump can do whatever he wants. His actions have shown he is unprincipled, and unprincipled (lawless) people are not bound by anything but their own whim. Whereas, a principled person, such as what Cruz presents himself to be, is bound by principle. For Cruz to accept the VP position with a man who pushes a Progressive agenda would be a sure sign that he was not principled to begin with (i.e. a liar).
But then, reason — HONEST reason — is required to look at things according to definition and not by a manipulation of evidence to fit a desired outcome.
Or would you say it would be ‘principled’ of Trump to accept the VP from Hillary at this point in time? Same thing you are suggesting (in fact, closer to believable)
I would say it would be evidence that Trump views the Constitutional Conservatism of Cruz and his followers as valuable and that Cruz would see an opportunity to affect many things including SC nominations. And perhaps Cruz would view it as a further opportunity to have an economic affect with Trump as well. Since neither view the TPP deal as good and Cruz DID push for fast trade authority TPA at first. He and Trump would be at the forefront of ditching a bad scheme.
Except that Trump has never — not once — given any indication — in deed or word — that he knows or even cares about the Constitution. So it is more likely that you are reading your desires into something where no such conclusion is reasonably warranted.
As for Cruz” if he were to suddenly align himself with a man who has shown no allegiance tot he rule of law and — worse — a total lack of humility and repentance before God — then he would — by deed — demonstrate that he will compromise principle. If he will do that, then he is not the man of honor he pretends to be and those who seek and see Truth will recognize him as just another liar.
Don, I understand the desire to defeat the Democrats, but when that desire becomes so strong that you will compromise principle — even to the point of running another Liberal Progressive against the Democrats — then you are not beating them, you have joined them.
Be careful Joe.
Cruz did exactly that with his vote for TPA and other similar items. But We Cruz supporters didn’t and haven’t withdrawn support because of that. Plus his recent comments re: Free Speech left a lot to be desired.
So I should vote for a man who has never mentioned the Constitution; has a history of supporting Liberal/Progressive policies; and who has consistently demonstrated a character typified by megalomania, narcissism and and an overwhelming desire for revenge? Is that what you are telling me?
Of Course not.
Go with the guy who votes for the TPA……. and Is a Constitutionalist…. except when it’s campaign time, and the first amendment is as fluid to him as it is to progressives….. and when it’s politically expedient to side with those progressives.
Yep, that’s what I thought: Party uber alles.
Don, you are like a man who notices his right leg has been cut off at the knee, so he tells the world he needs a tourniquet. Only, he puts it on his left leg, then complains to heaven because he still bleed to death.
Actually I think there is not much thinking going on right now Joe, but rather you are tied to a bout of Confirmation Bias.
The proof is in the pudding with respect to my support of Cruz …. I walk my talk and literally put my money where my mouth is so to speak.
What I don’t do is blind myself to realities : Those who riot are responsible for their own actions. And those who support them like Hillary and Sanders are also responsible. And those who try and silence Political Speech are Political Tyrants if in power and accessories if not in power but support them.
To Paraphrase Edgar Lee Masters:
” and we are voiceless in the presence of Realities we ( will not) speak..”.
“And those who try and silence Political Speech are Political Tyrants …”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/26/donald-trump-threatens-to-sue-media-outlets-as-president-with-me-theyre-not-protected/
So, according to your own words, Trump is a tyrant, but you are still willing to vote for him over Hillary?
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/10/watch-trump-defend-violence-against-protesters/209161
And again, according to YOUR words, Trump has passively supported violence by his supporters. In fact, he has asked them to assault people and offered to defend them if they do. Clinton and Sanders have not done this. In fact, they have denounced it. Yet, you are still willing to support him.
I’m sorry, Don, but I’m not the one who has closed his eyes here. I am seeing VERY clearly. I see a demagogue in Trump with all the makings of a tyrant. I see it in Hillary, as well (not Sanders — he’s just stupid). But we are not in the general election yet. I am trying to stop Trump now, so we will not have to vote 3rd Party. You and the GOP are already trying to make the case to vote for the demagogue, would-be tyrant, over the Treasonous traitor. I’m sorry, but if that ends up being the choice, I’m NOT voting for either. Not anymore. I’m tired of being insane.
Voting for anyone who disavows the 1st Amendment is not supporting the Constitution/ Bill of Rights. However you may parse the words and actions to fit whatever agenda.
Let facts lay as they must.
Cruz has NOT supported Trumps right to speak. Nor strongly condemned the rioters. Cruz did NOT support Trump’s call for a Temporary Stop to muslim immigration……when in fact just such measures WHERE instituted from the 1920s til 1963-4. Cruz DID vote for Fast Track Authority …. an item which bypasses the very fundamental nature of Congressional debate and oversight. Cruz also has said NOTHING about La Voy and its implications.
Cruz is far and above the Candidate for now……but to ignore these clear NON-Constitutional actions is to be blind to current political reality.
If you are inciting violence, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK! This is a matter of settled law. Trump HAS asked his supporters to use violence. ANYONE who argues otherwise IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Don, in this case, on this issue, the shoe seems to fit YOUR foot, my friend.
I also like how you have to twist to cherry pick from Cruz’s history while TOTALLY ignoring the fact that Trump has never spoken of or given us reason to believe he has even read the constitution. You and Limbaugh sure seem to want to defend that man while pretending to give nods to Cruz.
So basically you do not support the Bill of Rights, Free Speech.
You defend those causing violence. And condemn those who in essence say punch back if you are punched. And selectively ignore Clear Un-Constitutional positions taken by the “Constitutionalist”.
The Communists actually ARE punching…..and you give them a pass. Good to know.
Don,
You are acting like a Liberal/Progressive!
No. Actually I’m not.
I’m pointing out rather deep inconsistencies in positions/actions/words of a Candidate that others support based on PRINCIPLES.
And in fact it is just those Progressives who both created Hitler and use the term continually as a verbal weapon on their Political Enemies.
Now granted MOST of Cruz positions are principled. But to deny the cracks is to adopt a hypocritical stance that diminishes the claim to Principle.
Two examples BELOW. This thread is too Stringy.
Your dishonesty on this issue is quite disappointing.
Especially since I highlighted that those first “protesters” were punching Trump supporters in the crowd three separate times. Then they escalated their presence…..but not at any other Candidates appearances. So Trumps response was AFTER these events ( which of course you ignore).
But perhaps your wish will come true and Trump will lose in Florida. After all the Ballot disappearing came is already in full force:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/politics/technical-issues-plague-orange-county-polling-places
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/reports-trump-left-off-some-florida-ballots/
Of course this is all because Trump is a Nazi …… Gotcha ! I understand now.
That should be Game … not came.
No, Don, your blind allegiance to the GOP — to the point of denying the validity of this post and de facto defending Trump — is what is disappointing.
For the last time: I wrote in response to a news story BEFORE the violence in Chicago. So ALL of your objections are intellectually dishonest — especially since you have not ONCE addressed my argument. All you have done is thrown fallacious “he did it worse” arguments at me. I’ve lost some respect for you over this. 😦
I am against the GOP. I am defending free speech, and arguing for Balance in accusing autocratic thuggery.
The dialogue in the Media is 100% associative of Trump with Hitler…… here included.
*sigh*
Folks, when this post was originally written, Trump was being compared to Hitler and the Chicago violence had NOT happened. I was reacting to a media story — not trying to blame the Democrats or protect Trump by spreading the blame.
The facts are simple. Trump DOES share a lot of similar traits with the 1930’s version of Hitler. Others do, too, but I was not trying to spread the blame. I wrote to those who did not understand why the comparison of Trump to Hitler is valid. Now those who have their feelings hurt because I did not spread the blame are upset with me because I focused only on Trump. Oh well. I do not think this reflects on me at all, but on those who want to say “Don’t look at how Trump is like Hitler, look at how Hillary and Sanders are MORE like him.” The truth is, I can’t say they are more like Trump. Except for the violence — which Trump has also advocated and defended– I see no difference between the three.
So no, I will not take the heat off Trump by focusing on Hillary. All that does is insure we have a choice between Hitler and Mussolini this fall. I’d rather keep the spotlight on Trump in hope that we can get at least one Constitutional candidate to oppose the Progressives in this country.
“… I will not take the heat off Trump by focusing on Hillary…..”
My point entirely.
And thus the 2016 version of Brown Shirts get a Pass. The ones doing the actual rioting and violence. And so history repeats……or rhymes …. depending.
2016 Brown shirts? You mean the people beating up Trump protesters and then getting defended in court by Trump? Yes, I agree: Trump has his own brown shirts. But for some reason, you cannot see them. All you can see is Hillary…
Actual riots by Moveon.org. Felons 3 times punching Trump supporters during early rallies found to be supported by Soros. Sanders supporters increasingly attacking Trump rallies….escalating it. Actual harm dome by them. A coupls of Trump supporters punch back and Trump makes a comment. And THAT is your focus.
I’m sure this latest Threat From the Hillary – Sanders – Soros Cabal you will transform as caused by Trump.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/
What I see are increasing riots done by BLM
and the CPUSA
and MoveOn.org
and Occupy Wall Street
and Answerinc
and the National Council of the Race ( La Raza)
and the Illinois coalition of Immigrant and Rights Reform.
And your constant attacks are Against Rush Limbaugh and Trump …… kinda, sorta like those orchestrating this riots. And Oh yeah……like Glenn Beck.
Continued from above:
Reagan was a God send to this Country ! But when he advocated for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment he was in fact undermining his basic Constitutional Conservatism. Because the 22nd put limits on the power of the Executive and the Federal government by limiting the term of the Presidency. The Framers wanted above all else to establish a framework whereby the government was based on Federalism and individual rights. Thus the 22nd was written after a disastrous experience with the Progressive Socialist FDR. And it supported the intentions of the Founders and Framers.
And also Reagan, to my knowledge, never advocated repealing the 17th Amendment which was established originally to support Federalism over an empowered Central Federal government.
Second ;This from A. Lincoln:
” This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember and overthrow it.”
And yet and yet ….. we all know that his “principles” not with standing , his words and protestations were not followed in the last part of “or their revolutionary right to dismember and overthrow it”. In fact He suspended the Bill of Rights even for members of the Union.
Words about principles are fine. But we have historical precedent for those words and principles being brushed aside for other agendas of a particular leader. I don’t consider those instances where Cruz has shown cracks in this vein to be trivial. And remember, Cruz is my choice.