It's really interesting to see America doing the same stuff as Weimar Germany. The institute for sexology was destroyed in 1933, so by my counting you've got about a year until you get your Führer.
(I'm not trying to advocate gun ownership - I'm generally against that)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/intro...
(lots of other similarities there too)
But the real world will keep on happening. There will be inflation, unemployment, cost of living etc. Ultimately, as the experience of various European Trumps shows, this is what prevails. It doesn't even have to be Trump's faults or successes that buoy or sink him. I'm sure part of the reason he lost his first reelection bid was that COVID happened (and in itself that wasn't his fault), likewise Biden lost because inflation (again, largely not his fault).
Meanwhile, he doesn't strike me as someone who generally handles crises well. Problems will come, ones that materially affect his political base, and he will have to handle them well, or be serially lucky, or lose his power base.
So in short, I wouldn't assume any particular group of people will like him long-term just because they like him a few weeks in. They might. They might not.
EDIT to be clear, I don't wish Trump dead. I think that would be destructive to the US democracy and thus also bad for the world.
But Americans were more up in arms (literally) over the minor inconvenience of COVID restrictions than this. An imaginary communist plot to steal the election? Americans riot and try to burn down the Capitol. An actual authoritarian takeover of the executive branch takes place...
Because of course the Second Amendment isn't about defending liberty against tyranny, and never was. It's about white supremacists defending their privilege and their franchise for violence against an increasingly progressive and multicultural society, and has been since the days when the "well regulated militias" were used to suppress slave revolts and Native American uprisings.
And all of those guys with all of those guns will be just fine and dandy watching everything burn until the leopards-eating-your-face party finally turns on them as well.
[The revolution will be bloodless if the left allows it to be](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-t...).
Thus, the liberal, woke people should change their stance on restricting gun ownership, and consider becoming gun owners, too. :-)
Not sure the same logic applies when the government has a monopoly on tanks, fighter jets, missiles and so on, which (despite the second amendment’s use of the broad term “arms”) citizens can neither keep nor bear.
Obligatory side note that the actual text of the second amendment reads very different to me than the modern discourse about it. Perhaps the “well regulated militia” bit was just as important as the “keeping and bearing arms” bit, in terms of keeping tyranny in check.
But it somehow isn't a useful signal once it's something you personally don't know is true or believe is false. How does that make any sense?
Sounds like textbook confirmation bias. Should be included as a real life example in the definitions.
No I don't, you dolt. Learn which way the implication goes. "It is repeated because it's true" means something very different to "it is true because it's repeated". Here's an analogy of this conversation so you can understand how stupid you sound:
> Have you considered that he might be dying because he has cancer?
>> Can't argue with that, my granddad died and he didn't have cancer.
> The fact that people can die without having cancer has no relevance on my position that this person is died of cancer. If you want to argue with the statement, produce an argument instead of an unrelated sarcastic comment.
>> So you claim that someone dying is a useful signal to determine if they have cancer, but you only apply it to people who you already believe have cancer. But it somehow isn't a useful signal once it's someone you know doesn't have cancer. How does that make any sense? Sounds like textbook confirmation bias. Should be included as a real life example in the definitions.
Can people die of cancer? Can something be repeated because it's true? Who knows.
This makes it worse, not better, for your argument.
People repeat things all time because they think something is true, like the people you mention originally who are on "your side" of the political divide. They do the exact same thing even if they were misled into it, because they just don't know.
People on the right wing also repeat things on their social media, blogs etc. because believe it to be true.
Astroturfing and bots also repeat things to make them appear true.
So saying "It's repeated coz it's true" isn't a useful signal to determine if something is true or not, like you were claiming.
You're begging the question, in the proper use of term by assuming something is true in the first place.
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/begging-the-question-falla...
> A "begging the question" fallacy occurs when an argument assumes the truth of its conclusion within its premises, essentially using the very thing you are trying to prove as evidence to support it, creating a circular reasoning loop where no actual proof is provided; it's like saying "This is the best product because it's superior to all others.". > Key points about begging the question fallacy: > Circular reasoning: > This fallacy is often referred to as circular reasoning because it essentially repeats the conclusion in the premise, creating a loop where no new information is added to support the argument. > Assuming the conclusion: > The key aspect is that the argument takes the point it is trying to prove as already established fact without providing any independent evidence.
You provided no proof of the original except "it's repeated coz it's true" when the other commenter requested proof rather than just seeing repetitions.
People repeat falsehoods and exaggerations all the time like you did with your original comment, so that's not evidence of anything.
Also if people have to resort to childish personal insults then they're usually suffering from a hard case of the Dunning Kruger effect and are clueless about the fallacies they're suffering from.