More Trump Hitler comparisons

[yaxomoxay]

On this subject, I am wholly in agreement with @yaxomoxay & to some extent, with @Renzatic.

Mr Trump - whom I deeply detest, as a man, and as a president, - is not Adolf Hitler, (and, in an earlier life, I used to teach modern European history, thus, I have some passing knowledge of the subject matter under discussion), and to suggest he is, is frankly, profoundly ahistorical, and runs the risk of Godwinning the thread.

Ah! Our official historian is on my side: CASE CLOSED!

 

[Renzatic]

Not sure that Snowden would agree... not sure that Iraq/Lybia would agree. But to each their own.

Snowden did officially break the law, the invasion of Iraq was nigh unanimously supported by congress at the time, and I believe Obama wasn't in Libya long enough to circumvent the War Powers Act.

You could accuse them of abusing the system, but they still played within its bounds.

 

[lizkat]

You could make the argument that what Bush and Obama did with the Patriot Act was an abuse of the spirit of the law, they still tried keeping to the letter of it, followed the usual procedures, working with congress, and maintaining at least lip service to the Constitution. Trump's doing whatever he wants, openly circumventing the Constitution at times, and the usual checks and balances used to hold other presidents accountable aren't there for him, because our congressmen are too concerned with the wellbeing of their careers to do anything about it.

Trump is doing more than just end runs around the Constitution, he openly even lies about what it says in terms of the powers of his own office. But he doesn't care. One of his aims is to discredit a free press in the USA. When the press has cited his inability to do this or that under the Constitution, Trump's response has often enough been to make an end run, or attempt to do so, using the flexibility often afforded the occupant of our highest elective office, and then brag about it later if it succeeds.

You'd think the Republican members of Congress would join Democrats on principle and take exception to this behavior, but they've applauded from the sidelines in most cases, choosing to disregard the fact that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that a President of the other major party (or some third party?) may someday take one of those actions as precedent and apply it for his or her own benefit.

The Rs will doubtless make a federal case out of the first time a Democrat in the Oval Office decides to "pull a Trump" in making some extra-Constitutional maneuver. But for most of four years they've been Trump sycophants at the expense of the reputation of their own party. When Trump is finally out of office and these guys step back to have a look at their track record --and after all you need a track record in normal times to win elections-- they'll be appalled at what they have let happen in the name of currying the favor of a President. A lot of it will not look very grand when featured in ads by their political opponents. Even less so to Americans as some of the downside of all those deregulatory excesses kicks in down the road. There's no way the Dems are going to miss the chance to point out where those insults and injuries stemmed from.

 

[Edd]

Politicians have a long history of being liars. Trump is a turbocharged version of this. Helping him along is an unprecedented level of conservative media support, willing to spread the lies in tandem.

And the lies spread at literal light speed with the help of Facebook and other outlets. There’s no apparent limit to what he’s willing to lie about, as long as it benefits him. Hitler didn’t have all that going for him.

It’s nice that he hasn’t started new wars, sure. But what if he thought it would benefit him? He has no evident core set of beliefs. Trump, as a president, is something new.

 

[lizkat]

Ah! Our official historian is on my side: CASE CLOSED!

Unfortunately it may be more like case dismissed but not with prejudice. Trump's reign is likely coming to a close in the near term, but here in the USA and around the world, the rise of nativism and right wing populism is combining with oligarchic circumstances to the point where one can wonder about how those features will ultimately play out in any country or region.

In the USA we have armed right wing militia acting the fool and worse, and some militant leftists and anarchists proving entirely willing to try to catch the police in the middle... and we have police unequipped for all the burdens we lay on them to resolve social ills instead of just patrolling a beat and keeping Mitzi from beaning her husband with a skillet for coming home drunk on Friday night. It's a situation that grows ripe for the application of higher level and violent suppression of "violence in the streets" and at the moment we have a President who still indulges the fantasy that calling out federal troops will somehow improve or even guarantee his re-election chances.

Nah, Trump's no Hitler, primarily because slightly more than half the country thinks he's just an incompetent jackass and will vote against him, and the balance variously think he's relatively harmless, amusing, or their personal savior right up there with Jesus.

But... Trump's a guy who has put a foot in the door for fascism. He wants the free press gone, and has discredited it to the point where "fake news" is a general cry, not one belonging to either "side" in our politics. He pretends to take on big business but has gutted agency regulations that enable industry and employers to suppress, oppress and endanger workers and force them into pre-arbitration of disputes before they can even take a job or take out a loan. He has made it acceptable for a president to talk about himself as having impunity even when that's not what the laws still say. He has succeeded in using xenophobia and racism to amplify desire of some Americans to shut the door against even legal immigration, never mind inflow of those seeking asylum. He makes issues where there are none about the race of his political opponents and whether his hoked up assertions invalidate their qualifications for public office.

How can we imagine there's an end point of moves like those that isn't fascist? OK, yeah, Trump isn't a budding Hitler. He has merely created precedents in our highest elective office that make it easier for the next wannabe autocrat to extend autocratic behavior. A foot in the door. A stepping stone. That's bad enough to make an issue out of, and we need not compare him to Hitler but we do need to shine light on it until a vast majority of people choose once again to have a President who understands he serves the public, not just himself and not just the captains of industry. I'd like to think that time will arrive this coming November. Tolerating a guy like Trump for another 4 years is too dangerous, and not just because of him but because of the current ways of the party that brought him to power. The Republicans got tagged as the "Party of No" but they've forgotten how to say it to their own nominal leader. We have to say it for them this year.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

No, I didn't like when they did it to Obama, or Bush, or Clinton (including Hillary), or anyone else. Let's stop this bullshit. Hitler was Hitler, Stalin was Stalin, Churchill was Churchill, and yaxo is yaxo. Yes, we can learn from history, and we can learn from historical figures, but history doesn't repeat like that, and I do find this type of parallels very superficial - and annoying.

So basically in your view, and many others’, you can’t compare Hitler to anyone and therefore its silly regardless. I’m sure you probably had your response at least partially preloaded before you read more than just the title. Just because you don’t like Hitler being used for a comparison doesn’t mean comparable concerning qualities don’t exist.

I will agree that “Hitler” and “Nazi” has been way overused in the past. It’s like the story of the little boy who cried Hitler. Say it enough and it loses all meaning. I can’t speak for everybody who has made Hitler comparison comments, but when I have I’ve tried to say it in the context of Trump’s behavior, rhetoric, and self aggrandizing up to taking complete control.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

all presidents have rallies but it truly deflates Trump when that's taken away from him.

I don’t remember any other President in my lifetime holding regular rallies during their presidency. I'm open to being corrected on that though.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Politicians have a long history of being liars. Trump is a turbocharged version of this. Helping him along is an unprecedented level of conservative media support, willing to spread the lies in tandem.

And the lies spread at literal light speed with the help of Facebook and other outlets. There’s no apparent limit to what he’s willing to lie about, as long as it benefits him. Hitler didn’t have all that going for him.

It’s nice that he hasn’t started new wars, sure. But what if he thought it would benefit him? He has no evident core set of beliefs. Trump, as a president, is something new.

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” - Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

This is definitely towards the top of my list of shared traits between the Nazi party and Trump administration.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

So basically in your view, and many others’, you can’t compare Hitler to anyone and therefore its silly regardless. I’m sure you probably had your response at least partially preloaded before you read more than just the title. Just because you don’t like Hitler being used for a comparison doesn’t mean comparable concerning qualities don’t exist.

I will agree that “Hitler” and “Nazi” has been way overused in the past. It’s like the story of the little boy who cried Hitler. Say it enough and it loses all meaning. I can’t speak for everybody who has made Hitler comparison comments, but when I have I’ve tried to say it in the context of Trump’s behavior, rhetoric, and self aggrandizing up to taking complete control.

At this stage, it has been so over-used, - and usually in conversations or discussions where all nuance and subtlety have long since evaporated - that it has lost all meaning as a useful metaphor.

Now, as @lizkat has thoughtfully pointed out, a strong case can be made that autocratic tendencies have made an appearance in Mr Trump's person and administration, and that elements of optics and practice that are somewhat reminiscent of fascism, are also features of this administration, but that still does not - at least to my mind - equate to a valid comparison between Mr Trump and Adolf Hitler.

 

[SuperMatt]

https://www.Twitter or X not allowed/i/web/status/1300444695999504384/

Not specifically related to Hitler, but worth considering nonetheless.

This kid with a rifle in Wisconsin makes me think of the Hitler Youth. Kids are being encouraged to take up arms against fellow citizens to protect our precious gas stations? He surely isn‘t the only kid being indoctrinated in this way. People want to pin a medal on Kyle for killing some liberals:

 

[yaxomoxay]

So basically in your view, and many others’, you can’t compare Hitler to anyone and therefore its silly regardless. I’m sure you probably had your response at least partially preloaded before you read more than just the title. Just because you don’t like Hitler being used for a comparison doesn’t mean comparable concerning qualities don’t exist.

I will agree that “Hitler” and “Nazi” has been way overused in the past. It’s like the story of the little boy who cried Hitler. Say it enough and it loses all meaning. I can’t speak for everybody who has made Hitler comparison comments, but when I have I’ve tried to say it in the context of Trump’s behavior, rhetoric, and self aggrandizing up to taking complete control.

No, I am saying that it’s a totally useless comparison. Feel free to find traits and similitudes, they won’t still mean that Trump and Hitler are similar especially in their governing exactly as comparing the similitudes between Trump and Churchill would be equally useless. However, feel free to do as it pleases you.

 

[Huntn]

so was Churchill. Trump also begins the day in an unstructured manner, like Churchill, and he insults people, like Churchill (Hitler was nice to his people).
Is trump the new Churchill? Sorry but this thread is dumb. You can find parallels with anyone if you look closely. I guess that now I can finally say that all dog owners that are vegetarian are literally Hitler.

No surprise I disagree with you. Thump is a sociopath, a crook, a predigious liar and has been about skirting the law his entire life. It’s extremely dangerous to give this kind of person a sociopath the power of POTUS. He’s hard core into authoritarian rule if he is allowed to, and I feel he’d have no qualms about doing whatever he could to hold onto power. I’m sorry, I don’t see the relationship to Churchill, right now he’s Hitler light. Give him a chance and we’ll see what new low he can sink to.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I don’t see the relationship to Churchill.

me neither, but they certainly do share some traits.
I mean, for the love of God... Trump had the golden opportunity to increase Executive powers like 10x (COVID) and didn’t use it (actually and actively went for more local control). Talk about being authoritarian...

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

At this stage, it has been so over-used, - and usually in conversations or discussions where all nuance and subtlety have long since evaporated - that it has lost all meaning as a useful metaphor.

Now, as @lizkat has thoughtfully pointed out, a strong case can be made that autocratic tendencies have made an appearance in Mr Trump's person and administration, and that elements of optics and practice that are somewhat reminiscent of fascism, are also features of this administration, but that still does not - at least to my mind - equate to a valid comparison between Mr Trump and Adolf Hitler.

Let’s try from another angle. I don’t know how well versed you are in Hilter’s journey or personalty, probably the most studied world leader in modern history, but can you think of any personalty traits or behavior he doesn’t share with Hitler? That aren’t mostly because of his (currently) restricted powers by the other branches of government.

I’ve said before he’s not interested in foreign wars, I’ll give you that, but he seems more than eager to have one in the US. I don’t think there isn’t any far right group he doesn’t see “some good people” but I don’t think he’s ever mentioned ANY good people among anybody left of center, but I could be wrong.

 

[SuperMatt]

Let’s try from another angle. I don’t know how well versed you are in Hilter’s journey or personalty, probably the most studied world leader in modern history, but can you think of any personalty traits or behavior he doesn’t share with Hitler? That aren’t mostly because of his (currently) restricted powers by the other branches of government.

I’ve said before he’s not interested in foreign wars, I’ll give you that, but he seems more than eager to have one in the US. I don’t think there isn’t any far right group he doesn’t see “some good people” but I don’t think he’s ever mentioned ANY good people among anybody left of center, but I could be wrong.

I think what’s protected us from Trump‘s worst tendencies is one of his other bad tendencies: his incompetence.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I think what’s protected us from Trump‘s worst tendencies is one of his other bad tendencies: his incompetence.

Continuing with the comparisons, there are some WWII experts, including those who fought it at high levels, who say the main reason he lost WWII was because at some point he decided to take personal control over ground operations and kept making one disastrous decision after another and refused to listen to the advise of his more experienced generals who often argued against his opinions. There were several major battles where the allies knew they were screwed but then Hitler’s troops didn’t finish the job and just headed in another direction at the orders of Hitler.

 

[lizkat]

I don’t remember any other President in my lifetime holding regular rallies during their presidency. I'm open to being corrected on that though.

Well the Hatch Act used to keep more of a lid on that stuff than is the case now. Trump is exempt from it and so is Pence, but let's face it, some of the people who help him put these things together are not.

Past legal restrictions, the fact that Trump has treated his entire presidency like one unending campaign against "the other party" when he's taking a breather from tweeting vengeance on people he just regards as personal enemies (anyone who has crossed him, ever) is at the very least unseemly and a gross violation of past norms for our presidents.

Trump's failure in meeting a duty to differentiate his public remarks as a President, a partisan or just a citizen with a personal opinion certainly does nothing to shore up domestic or international understanding of the American presidency as officially having "all Americans" as constituents. That half-opens the door for any American president to treat the presidency itself as nothing more than part of "to the victor, the spoils" in a political contest.

Along with Trump's blatant scofflaw tendencies, his use of the WH bully pulpit as a permanent campaign platform creates an illusion that rule of law applies to underlings, not an American president.

How can it even matter any more if a future president picks up a smartphone and tweets a blatantly partisan remark from the WH? Trump has done it for four years straight.

To his supporters, Trump's public appearances and tweets may always have seemed part of one big ongoing rally... with the exception of those times he has issued any kind of walkback under some duress. And at that he's always managed to do those with a kinda wink wink that translates to "you know why I have to say this at the moment, right?" -- and he was pulling that stuff even during his campaigns in 2016 when dissing then well known leaders of the Republican party including John McCain and Paul Ryan, and then having to "apologize" and say he fully supported them.

He went out there and did those scripts the RNC handed him that summer as if he were a kid forced to write "I will not throw chalk at the back of the teacher's head" 100 times on the blackboard after school. And it was intentional that he came off that way. And it's to our shame that such behavior might well have been part of why some Americans voted for him.

We need better grade school civics and history lessons. Learning them as adults in the past four years is costing this country an unknown price, one that I hope we can actually pay and still have a country people want to live in.

 

[Renzatic]

me neither, but they certainly do share some traits.
I mean, for the love of God... Trump had the golden opportunity to increase Executive powers like 10x (COVID) and didn’t use it (actually and actively went for more local control). Talk about being authoritarian...

The question is, did he leave the response primarily to the states because he respects the limits the Constitution puts on the federal government in such scenarios, or did he do so because he knew that if he involved the federal government more deeply in the attempts to contain the spread of the virus, the harder it'd be to deflect the blame if things go wrong?

Given his previous behavior, and his actions during the initial days of the outbreak, it's easier to assume the latter.

 

[Alli]

me neither, but they certainly do share some traits.
I mean, for the love of God... Trump had the golden opportunity to increase Executive powers like 10x (COVID) and didn’t use it (actually and actively went for more local control). Talk about being authoritarian...

If he acted instead of dumping back on the states he would have to have actually done something! Heaven forbid he should have been responsible for something. He’s the guy who takes no responsibility.

 

[lizkat]

Let’s try from another angle. I don’t know how well versed you are in Hilter’s journey or personalty, probably the most studied world leader in modern history, but can you think of any personalty traits or behavior he doesn’t share with Hitler? That aren’t mostly because of his (currently) restricted powers by the other branches of government.

I’ve said before he’s not interested in foreign wars, I’ll give you that, but he seems more than eager to have one in the US. I don’t think there isn’t any far right group he doesn’t see “some good people” but I don’t think he’s ever mentioned ANY good people among anybody left of center, but I could be wrong.

Trump is pretty malleable on politics. Back in 2012 when some Republicans were trying to get Trump to take on Obama that year, and Bannon was holed up at some hotel and talking with him about the prospects and possible problems, Trump needed explanations about some very basic stuff regarding electoral politics in the USA. His own overall exposure had always amounted to throwing money at both parties and hoping enough would stick so whoever won would remember how great he was and let him have more power to do whatever he was after as a man of business.

1) he didn't understand anti-choice as a litmus test for Republicans. In fact once Bannon pointed out to him that he had donated money to Democrats and that made him suspect in the eyes of many Republican voters, he first scoffed and then said "ok I'm good with that, I'm against abortion right now. So that's already fixed."​

​

2) Bannon said another problem was Trump didn't even vote. Trump said BS he always voted and Bannon said no you've never voted in a primary in your whole life. Trump said how does anybody even know that, voting is private. Bannon had to explain that HOW one votes is private but THAT someone has voted is a matter of public record.​

​

The bottom line with Trump is always personal, not ideological. He sees far right individuals in the USA as supportive of his presidency.

But, if he thought Democrats would put him up on a pedestal -- and God knows he hopes some will do that over his EOs in lieu of more practical solutions to lack of a further stimulus program so far not having emerged from Congress-- then he would quit hammering on Dems in general and Pelosi in particular and start talking about what a schlub McConnell is and how people need to vote for Amy McGrath in KY and boot Mitch outta his chair.

And so... wait for it... that could still happen. But it would still be all about Trump and not about his ideology. He would literally make deals with devils, and maybe he already has. But not because of their politics, or their "in" with a deity. Because of however he figured the deal would make him look.