This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1barney67
I see the press has been calling Trump a Nazi, which is why some of you have been calling a Trump a Nazi.
The reason they give is that Trump used the expression "America First." I've read those articles that try to explain the history of that term, but they can't help seeing history through the veil of their politics. So let's stick to the facts for a change.
America First is a term that was used by a group of people who opposed FDR's entry into WWII. They were antiwar peaceniks, noninterventionists, partially libertarian in outlook though the politics of this group crossed the whole spectrum. It include socialist candidate for president Norman Thomas, various beatniks, pacifists and do-gooders, and at least two American icons: Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh.
You might know about the kidnapping of Lindbergh's two-year-old son. Here's Wikipedia:
"In response what was widely called "The Crime of the Century", Congress passed the so-called "Lindbergh Law", which made kidnapping a federal offense if the victim is taken across state lines or (as in the Lindbergh case) the kidnapper uses "the mail or ... interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense", such as in demanding ransom."
Sounds like a fair law to me. I wonder how many liberals have tried to sympathize or empathize with Lindbergh, with what he went through, or have considered thanking him because his and his family's suffering led to a rather obvious law.
In 2003, the claim was made that Lindbergh had mistress in Europe with whom he had sired children. To me it's like that this influenced his nonterventionism. If there are people you love, you don't want bombs to rain down on them.
Regardless, it's OK to argue that the U.S. shouldn't have intervened in Europe. I think it's a wrong position, but holding such a view does not make a person a Nazi.
When Trump means America First he means somewhat what Buchanan meant years ago when he ran. Buchanan, too, was called a Nazi by liberals, the heartless lovers of humanity. It's OK to disagree with them. What Trump means is putting the interests of the American people first. He finds abhorrent how the Nazis throwing Jews into incinerators.
It does so many people an injustice to accuse Trump of being a Nazi. No intelligent adult or child for that matter ought to make such an accusation. This is a book site. People here ought to know that words matter.
The reason they give is that Trump used the expression "America First." I've read those articles that try to explain the history of that term, but they can't help seeing history through the veil of their politics. So let's stick to the facts for a change.
America First is a term that was used by a group of people who opposed FDR's entry into WWII. They were antiwar peaceniks, noninterventionists, partially libertarian in outlook though the politics of this group crossed the whole spectrum. It include socialist candidate for president Norman Thomas, various beatniks, pacifists and do-gooders, and at least two American icons: Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh.
You might know about the kidnapping of Lindbergh's two-year-old son. Here's Wikipedia:
"In response what was widely called "The Crime of the Century", Congress passed the so-called "Lindbergh Law", which made kidnapping a federal offense if the victim is taken across state lines or (as in the Lindbergh case) the kidnapper uses "the mail or ... interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense", such as in demanding ransom."
Sounds like a fair law to me. I wonder how many liberals have tried to sympathize or empathize with Lindbergh, with what he went through, or have considered thanking him because his and his family's suffering led to a rather obvious law.
In 2003, the claim was made that Lindbergh had mistress in Europe with whom he had sired children. To me it's like that this influenced his nonterventionism. If there are people you love, you don't want bombs to rain down on them.
Regardless, it's OK to argue that the U.S. shouldn't have intervened in Europe. I think it's a wrong position, but holding such a view does not make a person a Nazi.
When Trump means America First he means somewhat what Buchanan meant years ago when he ran. Buchanan, too, was called a Nazi by liberals, the heartless lovers of humanity. It's OK to disagree with them. What Trump means is putting the interests of the American people first. He finds abhorrent how the Nazis throwing Jews into incinerators.
It does so many people an injustice to accuse Trump of being a Nazi. No intelligent adult or child for that matter ought to make such an accusation. This is a book site. People here ought to know that words matter.
2timspalding
The claims that Trump is a in some sense "like Hitler" do not revolve solely or primarily around his use of the phrase "America First."
To the phrase, however, it remains jarring, much as it would be jarring if a German were to speak above "Germany Above All!" Even if a German meant that well--"Germany, Germany above all in the protection of the poor and marginalized!" perhaps--it would still strike a bad note. I don't, frankly, think Trump had any idea of the origin or resonance of the term. This is, after all, a guy who cheerfully took up the quote, “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep," beloved by Mussolini.
To my mind, Trump is more Mussolini than Hitler--vain, pompous and ultimately ineffective. Mussolini was brighter, though.
To the phrase, however, it remains jarring, much as it would be jarring if a German were to speak above "Germany Above All!" Even if a German meant that well--"Germany, Germany above all in the protection of the poor and marginalized!" perhaps--it would still strike a bad note. I don't, frankly, think Trump had any idea of the origin or resonance of the term. This is, after all, a guy who cheerfully took up the quote, “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep," beloved by Mussolini.
To my mind, Trump is more Mussolini than Hitler--vain, pompous and ultimately ineffective. Mussolini was brighter, though.
4theoria
>1 barney67: wrote "I see the press has been calling Trump a Nazi, which is why some of you have been calling a Trump a Nazi."
>1 barney67: wrote (on 13 Oct 2016): "I'm not voting. We would be worse off with Trump, regardless of what he says he believes or what he plans to do. See my post in another thread. He's not a real candidate. You might as well put the White House janitor in office." https://www.librarything.com/topic/228816#5758811
Your embrace of Trump is remarkable. What changed your mind?
>1 barney67: wrote (on 13 Oct 2016): "I'm not voting. We would be worse off with Trump, regardless of what he says he believes or what he plans to do. See my post in another thread. He's not a real candidate. You might as well put the White House janitor in office." https://www.librarything.com/topic/228816#5758811
Your embrace of Trump is remarkable. What changed your mind?
6Taphophile13
>2 timspalding: Some are saying that Trump is more Berlusconi than Mussolini:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/21/if-berlusconi-is-like-trump-what-c...
The comparison is . . . uh, interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/21/if-berlusconi-is-like-trump-what-c...
The comparison is . . . uh, interesting.
7timspalding
>6 Taphophile13:
I feel dirty saying it, but I think Berlusconi has considerably more class, political savvy and even moral fibre.
I feel dirty saying it, but I think Berlusconi has considerably more class, political savvy and even moral fibre.
8barney67
>4 theoria: What makes you think I've changed my mind?
You want it to be the good guys versus the bad guys. I've been guilty of that, too, for most of my life. But Trump isn't a conservative. Nor is he a liberal. He's a businessman, and what we're seeing is a businessman presidency. Business is practical, not ideological. Trump likes to solve problems, to get things done. A very American way of being. He's an emblematic American in many ways, not all of them admirable.
What I dislike is superficial debate. I am particularly sensitive to abuses of language. You will not hear from me comparisons of current American politicians to Hitler, Mussolini, Nazis, and so on. I associate that kind of corrosive hyperbole with the excessive emotion of immaturity. I think you know the kind of forum guest I'm talking about, the kind who can barely write one sentence without dropping the f-bomb. That's the sign of a brain gone to mush and a soul ensnared in barbed wire.
That bit about the White House janitor was funny. That's why I said it. I doubt it's true. I'm not sure the White House has a janitor.
You want it to be the good guys versus the bad guys. I've been guilty of that, too, for most of my life. But Trump isn't a conservative. Nor is he a liberal. He's a businessman, and what we're seeing is a businessman presidency. Business is practical, not ideological. Trump likes to solve problems, to get things done. A very American way of being. He's an emblematic American in many ways, not all of them admirable.
What I dislike is superficial debate. I am particularly sensitive to abuses of language. You will not hear from me comparisons of current American politicians to Hitler, Mussolini, Nazis, and so on. I associate that kind of corrosive hyperbole with the excessive emotion of immaturity. I think you know the kind of forum guest I'm talking about, the kind who can barely write one sentence without dropping the f-bomb. That's the sign of a brain gone to mush and a soul ensnared in barbed wire.
That bit about the White House janitor was funny. That's why I said it. I doubt it's true. I'm not sure the White House has a janitor.
9StormRaven
Your embrace of Trump is remarkable. What changed your mind?
It isn't that surprising, given that barney is a bog-standard modern conservative, and modern conservatives don't have any principles at all.
It isn't that surprising, given that barney is a bog-standard modern conservative, and modern conservatives don't have any principles at all.
10southernbooklady
>8 barney67: He's a businessman, and what we're seeing is a businessman presidency. Business is practical, not ideological.
Business seeks to be profitable. "Practical" is secondary. It may not even be necessary if the payout is big enough.
But if Trump is a business president then every citizen of the country is a shareholder in the company, and he has to answer to them -- something he's not used to doing, seeing as his own business conglomerate is privately owned.
Business seeks to be profitable. "Practical" is secondary. It may not even be necessary if the payout is big enough.
But if Trump is a business president then every citizen of the country is a shareholder in the company, and he has to answer to them -- something he's not used to doing, seeing as his own business conglomerate is privately owned.
11madpoet
Like any politician, there is a big difference between what Trump says and what he does. He seems to be leading the US into MORE war and foreign entanglements, not less... the exact opposite of what he promised.
What does he mean by 'America first'? If he means a less interventionist foreign policy, that might be good... not just for the US, but for everybody.
But if he means bullying other nations and alienating allies, neutrals and everyone else (which he seems to be doing) then he's going to find that the golden rule applies to international relations as much as personal relations, and perhaps a country that owes trillions to foreigners (esp. Japan and China) should be a bit more... what's the word? Tactful? Respectful? Circumspect? All those things that the Donald is not.
What does he mean by 'America first'? If he means a less interventionist foreign policy, that might be good... not just for the US, but for everybody.
But if he means bullying other nations and alienating allies, neutrals and everyone else (which he seems to be doing) then he's going to find that the golden rule applies to international relations as much as personal relations, and perhaps a country that owes trillions to foreigners (esp. Japan and China) should be a bit more... what's the word? Tactful? Respectful? Circumspect? All those things that the Donald is not.
12StormRaven
He's a businessman, and what we're seeing is a businessman presidency. Business is practical, not ideological.
He may be a "businessman president", but he's a terrible businessman, and knows pretty much nothing about how the government functions. Thus far, he's accomplished almost nothing despite having the advantage of a Congress controlled by his party.
Trump likes to solve problems, to get things done.
Give an example of a problem that Trump has actually solved.
He may be a "businessman president", but he's a terrible businessman, and knows pretty much nothing about how the government functions. Thus far, he's accomplished almost nothing despite having the advantage of a Congress controlled by his party.
Trump likes to solve problems, to get things done.
Give an example of a problem that Trump has actually solved.
14barney67
10> But if Trump is a business president then every citizen of the country is a shareholder in the company, and he has to answer to them
You're taking the analogy too literally. When I said "businessman presidency", I didn't mean it would be identical to running a business. I meant it had some aspects of business because that's the president's experience, as opposed to having another lawyer for president. Trump knows that America isn't a company and he knows he isn't the boss of it. We're certainly not shareholders. He doesn't believe that. I doubt many people do. In fact, again the point is missed that this was an "anti-establishment", "power to the people" election. I assumed most people knew that. The press talked about it all year.
Presidents don't really "answer to" the people except during the election.
Accountability in politics takes other forms. Their power is limited by the Consitution, by many other laws, by the Congress and Supreme Court (i.e. the other two brances of government). If he gets too far out of line, he'll get impeached or somehow undermined by people around him. No man is an island.
On left and right, there always seems to be this fear that a dictatorship can suddenly arise in America. I find that possibility somewhere between highly unlikely and impossible. But I suppose it does make for interesting TV, movies, or novels.
It's odd to say that making money isn't practical. It's very practical. How are you going to pay for food, housing, and shelter? What's more practical than that? I would rather know people who are motivated by money than people who are motivated by power. Making money, making a living, going to work, these are all relatively harmless, healthy ways of living. Power, on the other hand, is a kind of poison. Trying to get power over others involves all kinds of manipulation and deceit. Sure, making money can, too, but not always, and not by necessity or by definition.
You're taking the analogy too literally. When I said "businessman presidency", I didn't mean it would be identical to running a business. I meant it had some aspects of business because that's the president's experience, as opposed to having another lawyer for president. Trump knows that America isn't a company and he knows he isn't the boss of it. We're certainly not shareholders. He doesn't believe that. I doubt many people do. In fact, again the point is missed that this was an "anti-establishment", "power to the people" election. I assumed most people knew that. The press talked about it all year.
Presidents don't really "answer to" the people except during the election.
Accountability in politics takes other forms. Their power is limited by the Consitution, by many other laws, by the Congress and Supreme Court (i.e. the other two brances of government). If he gets too far out of line, he'll get impeached or somehow undermined by people around him. No man is an island.
On left and right, there always seems to be this fear that a dictatorship can suddenly arise in America. I find that possibility somewhere between highly unlikely and impossible. But I suppose it does make for interesting TV, movies, or novels.
It's odd to say that making money isn't practical. It's very practical. How are you going to pay for food, housing, and shelter? What's more practical than that? I would rather know people who are motivated by money than people who are motivated by power. Making money, making a living, going to work, these are all relatively harmless, healthy ways of living. Power, on the other hand, is a kind of poison. Trying to get power over others involves all kinds of manipulation and deceit. Sure, making money can, too, but not always, and not by necessity or by definition.
15barney67
>11 madpoet: What are you, eleven? Politicians don't keep their election promises. Party, country, period of time -- doesn't matter. It's always been true.
They can't keep their promises because they promise so much and because no one really knows what it's like to be president until they get there. Every president breaks promises. Every president disappoints voters, parties, and backers. So what? Truth-tellers throughout history usally get crucified or shot.
They can't keep their promises because they promise so much and because no one really knows what it's like to be president until they get there. Every president breaks promises. Every president disappoints voters, parties, and backers. So what? Truth-tellers throughout history usally get crucified or shot.
16barney67
Correction on my post number 8. I said I didn't compare politicans to Nazis, but I did just write a post finding a link between liberals and Nazis. I haven't called any president Commie or Nazi. Neverthelss, I was wrong to apply the word Nazi to liberals.
17jjwilson61
>14 barney67: In fact, again the point is missed that this was an "anti-establishment", "power to the people" election.
The election may have been anti-establishment, but you could hardly have found a candidate further from "the people" then Trump.
The election may have been anti-establishment, but you could hardly have found a candidate further from "the people" then Trump.
18StormRaven
Politicians don't keep their election promises. Party, country, period of time -- doesn't matter. It's always been true.
Actually, no, that's not true. Studies have been done on this issue and found that politicians keep a fair number of the promises they make while campaigning. Here's an article from Psychology Today: Politicians Keep Their Promises More Often Than You Think.
And here's one from Five Thirty-Eight: Trust Us: Politicians Keep Most Of Their Promises, and another from The Atlantic: It Turns Out That Politicians Keep Their Word. And yet another from The Washington Post: Contrary to popular belief, politicians often keep campaign promises.
And here's Politifact tracking the promises of recent Presidents.
Politicians usually seek office because they want to do something, and they are often quite open about what they want done. They tell people about their ideas and their plans during campaigns. When they get into office, they try to do the things they said they wanted done. Politicians also want to be reelected. To this end, they do the things that they said they would do, because saying they would do them is what got them elected in the first place. They don't fulfill all of their campaign promises, for a wide variety of reasons, but the record shows that politicians do follow through on them more often than not. The idea that politicians just lie and ignore their campaign promises is a popular one, but it doesn't match reality.
Actually, no, that's not true. Studies have been done on this issue and found that politicians keep a fair number of the promises they make while campaigning. Here's an article from Psychology Today: Politicians Keep Their Promises More Often Than You Think.
And here's one from Five Thirty-Eight: Trust Us: Politicians Keep Most Of Their Promises, and another from The Atlantic: It Turns Out That Politicians Keep Their Word. And yet another from The Washington Post: Contrary to popular belief, politicians often keep campaign promises.
And here's Politifact tracking the promises of recent Presidents.
Politicians usually seek office because they want to do something, and they are often quite open about what they want done. They tell people about their ideas and their plans during campaigns. When they get into office, they try to do the things they said they wanted done. Politicians also want to be reelected. To this end, they do the things that they said they would do, because saying they would do them is what got them elected in the first place. They don't fulfill all of their campaign promises, for a wide variety of reasons, but the record shows that politicians do follow through on them more often than not. The idea that politicians just lie and ignore their campaign promises is a popular one, but it doesn't match reality.
19RickHarsch
>17 jjwilson61: The US is a crazy place.
20madpoet
>15 barney67: Don't get me wrong: I never expected him to be able to keep to his policy of LESS foreign intervention. With an ego like his? No way! But if he had, he would have done at least one thing right. Something that even Obama failed at. Funny how many Democrats patted him on the back for attacking Syria, saying he was finally 'acting like a President.' Because that's what American presidents do. They do war. Got to keep that old military-industrial complex humming.
