First.....let me say, the Hitler thing is not fair.............and yes, I do believe I posted something at least indirectly promoting that...........what we have to look at is ......if you look at the Tyrants of the 20th century, they all did a lot of things that were similar to each other...........most of those things were vague or could be interpreted several different ways..........President Trump in some ways does some of the same things.....now, he is not an experienced politician, and he has a different way he operates than other Presidents, so that could very well be the reason......but......no country on Earth is immune to having a tyrant take over, we have several checks and balances built in to our system to keep that from happening, but so did some of the other countries it has happened to...........we just need to stay alert and keep questioning things that don't appear right, and we need the media to do that, the more they do, the better for the country as a whole.............just remember , a lot of these tyrants were legally elected, started out doing a great job, and slowly eroded to systems and independent entities that were there to keep them from happening........for all the Trump supporters, pay attention, question things that don;t appear right, don't just accept whats being done as proper..........Both sides , left and right need to look at everything as objectively as possible
"This Hitler nonsense"
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
I don't get the sympathy for the media. There have been many retractions in the last two weeks that don't make near the splash the initial fudged headline gets. It's war with them. Legally of course.
Look, you are a smart guy. If you wanted to, you could write an essay that points to similarities between Trump and Hitler. If you wanted to, you can write one that does the same thing for George W. Bush or Obama.
If you want to write an article about how it is total bullshit to make comparisons between Hitler and Trump, you (and I) can do that too. It all depends on what characteristics/facts you choose to use to support your argument.
Do I believe that Trump is the next Hitler? No. Are there some aspects of Trump's personality and way of doing things that concern me? Definitely.
He has been President for just over 2 weeks, and the transition has been completely chaotic. Maybe that was to be expected since he did not win the popular vote. I do not think that the anti-Trump individuals are innocent in fomenting some of the chaos. I am not ruling out the possibility that he will go down in history as doing an overwhelmingly positive job as President. But, I don't think it can be ruled out that his tenure will show that he was not cut out for this job. Time will tell.
I will disagree. Trump absolutely is trying to discredit the media. It's an important part of his media strategy to go over and around them and it was a critical part of his campaign strategy to embarrass and demonize them.
That doesn't mean he created the rift or that it isnt true that the media was out to get him as soon as he won the GOP nomination.
He started tapping into what people could plainly see - the corporate media is the propaganda wing of the establishment. They are part of the same power structure in the same swamp. He cultivated votes
That remains his message but you really have to hate the guy not to concede he's got a point.
I think you need to read the writings of the first Buddha. There is this thing called "the middle path". It's life changing.
Always be skeptical of power. Do your best though, to be smarter than the manipulative out of context dog whistles like "alternative facts."
Long post - *posted by MegaPoke on GlowPoke's laptop
Guys - the problem with the hyperbolic nazi shit (historically incorrect and frankly disrespectful to ACTUAL nazi victims) can be summed up in one phrase: Confirmation Bias.
I use it a lot because it's the basic filter we all have, and there's not one poster on this board who is immune to it. But the Hitler stuff is a great example of how people see the same thing and arrive at vastly different places.
If you were always pro-Trump: The nazi stuff is a call to circle the wagons and attack the messengers. It's obvious to these people that Trump isn't Hitler, but the purpose for the Hitler stuff is personalized.
If you were a reluctant Trump voter: You made what you ultimately felt was an educated and purposeful decision but you weren't a koolaid drinker at first. Unfortunately, the cartoonish claims and emotional diatribes against Trump and by association, anyone who voted for him are hard not to take personally over time - and as the guy actually fulfills his campaign promises and calls out the bullshit, it gets VERY hard not to root for him and defend your choice - however reluctant. This is me. I view Trump as a much needed third party insurrection into the establishment machine and I am LOVING the chaos and destruction of that globalist machine. I see the communist antifa morons assaulting free speech, and their idiotic memes about punching nazis (nazis being a convenient boogyman label for anyone you don't like), but they forget - punching commies is a much longer American tradition. These riots, crying congressmen, lying media and whining celebrities are all red meat for my confirmation bias - pushing me more and more into the pro-Trump camp. I'm trying to stay relatively objective, but given all the moronic vitriol, I would be lying if I didn't say that I hope the guy is so successful, he winds up on Rushmore.
Then you've got your died in the wool skeptics like @CowboyJD . He and I are politically aligned as much as anyone on the board, but the difference is when it came to election day - I voted for the guy I felt had the best chance to beat Hillary and own my choice in that regard. He made the choice to stay principled and vote libertarian - in part because it was a foregone conclusion this state would go red and there was a certain strategy to voting libertarian for future elections. It's been interesting to see how the differences in this single deviation from a similar political philosophy have played out, but I would suggest that JD's position of avowed skepticism regarding Trump is reflective of his own confirmation bias that it was important not to pick a "side."
Then you've got the neocons, neolibs and socialists and anyone else who was always "Never Trump." You may be coming from a principled place, but your own confirmation bias sees the things Trump is doing and the speed and irreverence of it tends to validate your darkest misgivings and concerns, whether objectively justifiable or not. Nothing the guy does is worthy of praise, and this lifelong moderate New York democrat is clearly a: racist, nazi, homophobe - despite a lifetime of being a popular famous playboy celebrity until 2 years ago. To me, it's ridiculous on the face of it, but if you were pro Bernie or pro Hillary, you were exposed to different groupthink, media bias and personal concerns than I was, and it filters through your own confirmation bias to produce the endless debates on board like this.
I really don't think there's anything wrong with confirmation bias as long as you know you've got it and that at least sometimes you keep an open mind to avoid being a cliche who can't be reasoned with. This board is not a safe place, but I'm pretty sure most of us would watch an OSU game (except then we would gang up on 007 for the goon he is) together with no talk of politics and have a great time. I just try to keep that in mind.
Guys - the problem with the hyperbolic nazi shit (historically incorrect and frankly disrespectful to ACTUAL nazi victims) can be summed up in one phrase: Confirmation Bias.
I use it a lot because it's the basic filter we all have, and there's not one poster on this board who is immune to it. But the Hitler stuff is a great example of how people see the same thing and arrive at vastly different places.
If you were always pro-Trump: The nazi stuff is a call to circle the wagons and attack the messengers. It's obvious to these people that Trump isn't Hitler, but the purpose for the Hitler stuff is personalized.
If you were a reluctant Trump voter: You made what you ultimately felt was an educated and purposeful decision but you weren't a koolaid drinker at first. Unfortunately, the cartoonish claims and emotional diatribes against Trump and by association, anyone who voted for him are hard not to take personally over time - and as the guy actually fulfills his campaign promises and calls out the bullshit, it gets VERY hard not to root for him and defend your choice - however reluctant. This is me. I view Trump as a much needed third party insurrection into the establishment machine and I am LOVING the chaos and destruction of that globalist machine. I see the communist antifa morons assaulting free speech, and their idiotic memes about punching nazis (nazis being a convenient boogyman label for anyone you don't like), but they forget - punching commies is a much longer American tradition. These riots, crying congressmen, lying media and whining celebrities are all red meat for my confirmation bias - pushing me more and more into the pro-Trump camp. I'm trying to stay relatively objective, but given all the moronic vitriol, I would be lying if I didn't say that I hope the guy is so successful, he winds up on Rushmore.
Then you've got your died in the wool skeptics like @CowboyJD . He and I are politically aligned as much as anyone on the board, but the difference is when it came to election day - I voted for the guy I felt had the best chance to beat Hillary and own my choice in that regard. He made the choice to stay principled and vote libertarian - in part because it was a foregone conclusion this state would go red and there was a certain strategy to voting libertarian for future elections. It's been interesting to see how the differences in this single deviation from a similar political philosophy have played out, but I would suggest that JD's position of avowed skepticism regarding Trump is reflective of his own confirmation bias that it was important not to pick a "side."
Then you've got the neocons, neolibs and socialists and anyone else who was always "Never Trump." You may be coming from a principled place, but your own confirmation bias sees the things Trump is doing and the speed and irreverence of it tends to validate your darkest misgivings and concerns, whether objectively justifiable or not. Nothing the guy does is worthy of praise, and this lifelong moderate New York democrat is clearly a: racist, nazi, homophobe - despite a lifetime of being a popular famous playboy celebrity until 2 years ago. To me, it's ridiculous on the face of it, but if you were pro Bernie or pro Hillary, you were exposed to different groupthink, media bias and personal concerns than I was, and it filters through your own confirmation bias to produce the endless debates on board like this.
I really don't think there's anything wrong with confirmation bias as long as you know you've got it and that at least sometimes you keep an open mind to avoid being a cliche who can't be reasoned with. This board is not a safe place, but I'm pretty sure most of us would watch an OSU game (except then we would gang up on 007 for the goon he is) together with no talk of politics and have a great time. I just try to keep that in mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
We are aware. So what? Obama once said we have 57 states. Bush and Biden verbal gaffe's could fill a library.
Obama also said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. He also said our premiums would be reduced by $2k annually. He knew both these statements were false but ran with them.
Should we talk about Benghazi alternative facts?
I would rather talk about how "He Will Not Divide Us" is actually the new Heil Hitler, and how the antifa and similar Soros funded useful idiots are actually the new fascist brownshirts. And how the near total lack of condemnation from some moderate leftists on this board and millions across the nation is eerily similar to the lack of condemnation by moderate muslims toward IslamoFASCISTS. Interesting bedfellows.
But sure, let's keep talking about a first week verbal gaffe regarding CrowdSizegate. Super relevant.
People here and pretty much all over don't seem to be a big fan of the Middle path.
It's definitely a lot of work.
This is clearly a tar baby for you. It's noteworthy of course, but until there's a larger body of work than a week one gaffe, I'm going to go ahead and give more attention to things that seem important.
The events going on, and how they are covered tend to be very polarizing. I don't think you would be quite as middle path if you had reluctantly voted Trump as a strategy to stop Hillary. Trust me, it takes you to a weird place when the riots start.
Fair enough.
I would, of course, respond that voting for a third party candidate in Oklahoma....thereby actually accomplishing some change at the state level in a state guaranteed to send its electoral votes for Trump...was yet another example of taking the Middle path.
We have, however, had that discussion ad nauseum.
Fair enough.
I would, of course, respond that voting for a third party candidate in Oklahoma....thereby actually accomplishing some change at the state level in a state guaranteed to send its electoral votes for Trump...was yet another example of taking the Middle path.
We have, however, had that discussion ad nauseum.
We have, and I respect that decision. Sometimes question myself for not making the same one, to be honest. But I made my choice and am hoping it works out. I view the guy as an anti-establishment, pro small business, originalist-nominating third party non-politician who is pissing off the globalist intelligentsia every. single. day. You may not want to admit it, but I know that some of that stuff is very appealing to any libertarian.
Absent my authoritarian Trump concerns, sure some of it is appealing.
Again who says anyone just listens to the wh spokespeople?
Negative. The WH spokesperson doesn't claim to be impartial or objective. You are simply wrong.
Are they? In the first two weeks, the media gaffes have clearly outnumbered the Trump gaffes, and retractions and corrections seem to be difficult to come by. Maybe we just have different definitions of objective.
Besides, as Harry said, I doubt anyone on this board only listens to WH spokespeople.
Right, coming from someone who gobbled every turd/lie for the last eight years.
The problem with the media is that they want it both ways. They want to be in bed with the politicians yet get treated as neutral. Can't have the DNC chair as a paid media consultant. Can't have your lead political reporter be a guy who hosts $25K per plate fundraisers for certain presidential candidates. These are the things that discredited the media. And they have to show they are breaking from those practices if they want that credibility back. But have you seen Stephanopolis step down? (I haven't). Have you seen any deliberate change by the media to separate its political activism from its news broadcasting. I haven't.
They have doubled down. NPR is sickening to listen to.
Name a trusted news source that isn't either on the attack or partisan defending in every paragraph they write.
Doubled-down is EXACTLY what they've done.
They'd triple down, or more, if that didn't defy math.
If a triple dog dare is possible then so is tripling down.
Quadruple dog dare just sounds dumb so I don't think that's possible.
I'll just leave this right here.
That HAS to be photoshopped. Lol
