Really? Trump and the brown shirts? Do we need to compare everybody to Hitler?
I read an article recently that says he's more of an American version of Italy's Berlusconi, and that seems more reasonable to me.
I read an article recently that says he's more of an American version of Italy's Berlusconi, and that seems more reasonable to me.
> "Trumps policy is...."
No. Trump has said time and again, we have immigration laws and we need to follow them. That includes having more reinforced border fences or walls. Already law. The end of sanctuary cities, which are basically localized laws breaking federal law.
That's true, but that's not all he has said. He has also said that Mexicans are rapists, that Muslims should be banned from the U.S., and that he "doesn't know" about white supremacists. Among many, many other examples that I could cite.
Trump is not an idiot. He's not going to grow a little mustache and call for a "final solution to the Muslim problem." But it is definitely fair to compare him to the Nazis because the Nazis provide a data point of what can happen when you give political power to xenophobes, which Trump most certainly is.
Trump is also concerned with radical islamic terrorism. There is a case for banning immigration from specific countries. We already do it, we also already prohibit U.S. businesses from doing business in specific countries. You can say his take on islamic terrorism / and islamic immigration is too hardline. I don't agree. There are clearly trends of actual radicalization within even second generation muslim immigrnts that require vigilance.
Also the "doesn't know" statement regarding supremist groups was him partially hearing in his ear piece in a remote interview Tapper talking about disavowing "groups" Why would Trump "not know" when his daughter is married to a Jewish man? I noticed how you didn't bring up David Duke either and that's because you know full and well Trump in 2000 said disparaging things about Duke not that some 'disavowal' was needed. He has no association with any of them.
So you're saying it's fair to compare him to Nazi's when his daughter is married to a Jewish man and he has many muslims living and staying in his buildings and that he has repeatedly said he holds in high regard. Time to face facts.
> There is a case for banning immigration from specific countries
But that is not what Trump has proposed. He has proposed a ban on Muslims. Muslim is a religion, not a nationality.
> partially hearing
That excuse has be thoroughly debunked.
> his daughter is married to a Jewish man
Jews are not the targets this time, Muslims are.
> he has many muslims living and staying in his buildings
Because he is not legally allowed to discriminate against them. Yet.
Putting up warning signs, even contentious ones, at the top of the slope is reasonable.
(I read the same article and it is worth noting that a decade ago, every Italian I spoke to began conversations with "I am sorry about Berlusconi ...")
I am not advocating ignoring all discussion of issues raised by Trump or (trumping?!) all his issues with the Nazi card, but it is a part of his background and appeal and should be calmly assessed along with other issues of protectionism, labor rights and more.
Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invaded, proceeded to rounded and murder and otherwise caused the death of up to 3.1 million Vietnamese in the Vietnamese Resistance War against America.
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy are literally Hitler.
Clearly not. But neither are they the unambiguously virtuous "good guys" that Americans like to imagine that they are.
Let's stop taking everything to extremes. Will a Trump presidency lead to mass executions of civilians in gas chambers? Probably not. Will it lead to innocent people -- mainly Muslims and people with dark skin -- being deported, separated from their families, tortured, and killed? Very likely. Trump has explicitly promised to do all of these things, and I see no reason to doubt him on this. Do I think it will happen to me? Probably not, but that's only because I'm a rich white guy. But I take little comfort from that because once xenophobia takes root it tends to grow like kudzu. I'm a rich white guy, but I'm also Jewish, so there are absolutely some Trump supporters who would like to see me go back to where I came from along with the Muslims, the Mexicans, and the niggers. The best way to keep those people out of power is to keep Trump out of power. And if pointing out the parallels between Trump and Hitler helps to do that then Godwin be damned. Sometimes the Nazi shoe fits.
[UPDATE:] FWIW, it's not just me making this argument:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trumps-mass-deportatio...
Besides, many people like to believe they are the “good guys”.
"Sending people back who came illegally [is OK]" is a thinly disguised argument of that same form because we are the ones who decide what is legal. In that respect we are like the Nazis. They thought that what they were doing was OK because it was "legal", because they were "just following orders." Well, no, it was not OK. And deporting people who grew up here "illegally" through no fault of their own but rather because their adoptive parents didn't fill out the right paperwork and xenophobia happens to be running amok is likewise not OK no matter what the law says.
That is certainly true, but Trump has said much more than just calling for law-and-order (which, by the way, is a very loaded term in American politics: the phrase was first used by Richard Nixon as a deliberate code phrase intended to signify solidarity with southern white racists in the 60's). He has also, for example, called out Mexicans for being "rapists" and called for a "total ban on Muslims entering the U.S." Comments like those are xenophobic. The combination of xenophobia and law-and-order is very reminiscent of early Nazi rhetoric. That doesn't necessarily make Trump a Nazi, but it does make it not entirely unreasonable to raise the question.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/487560886/is-trumps-call-for-l...
Trump probably did not intend "law and order" to be a coded racist message. His profound ignorance almost certainly does extend to this branch of American political history. But that's irrelevant. A loaded term is loaded whether or not the speaker intends it to be. Nixon denied it too:
"Nixon publicly denied that the phrase was a code for racism — the very accusation implied a "reverse racism," he said, as if the critics were suggesting that "the Negroes" didn't want law and order, too. But the message was clear enough in Nixon's references to a "city jungle" that threatened to swallow the affluent suburbs. His TV ads showed a middle-aged white woman walking nervously down a city street at night, where the assailants who might be lurking in the shadows presumably weren't hippies or demonstrators."
That is certainly true, except for two things. First, the phrase "law and order" is a loaded term in American politics. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order_(politics) And second, Trump has made many xenophobic statements, both implicit and explicit. He called out Mexicans for being rapists. He called for a "total ban on Muslims entering the U.S." He failed to distance himself from endorsements by white supremacists. These things do not make Trump a Nazi, but they do make it fair to draw attention to the similarities.