Why Trump/Hitler Comparisons are Unfair

[Drewbot]

He also did pay for ads in NYT to call for the execution of five innocent black guys a couple of years back, so I can't rule out the possibility that he would commit his own Holocaust if he thought he'd get away with it.

Ahhh, the Mind-Reader Tell for cognitive dissonance.

Here is the only mention of race he had in his ad:

Many New York families — White, Black, Hispanic and Asian — have had to give up the pleasure of a leisurely stroll in the Park at dusk, the Saturday visit to the playground with their families, the bike ride at dawn, or just sitting on their stoops — given them up as hostages to a world ruled by the law of the streets, as roving bands of wild criminals roam our neighborhoods, dispensing their own vicious brand of twisted hatred on whomever they encounter

 

[ddt]

Ahhh, the Mind-Reader Tell for cognitive dissonance.

Here is the only mention of race he had in his ad:

Obviously, an advertising agency wrote that text, and they made no reference to the race of the suspects (but did mention an inclusive list of races for the general populace - sounds much like virtue signalling). We don't know what Trump spurred to order and pay for the ad in the first place.

But his conviction for refusing black tenants in his apartment buildings does give us a clue.

 

[ddt]

No, you misunderstand. Trump, Chavez, Orban and Erdogan seek to have 50% plus one vote, anything beyond that is a burden. Of course they don't go quite as far since one needs to have a margin of error built in, but their reach falls well shy of 60%.

Two examples from the past several months:

Orban - 49.77%, twisted electoral system to be sufficient for a supermajority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_parliamentary_election,_2018

Erdogan - 52.59%, with severely slanted playing field, some support was also recieved by allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_2018

Trump is in the same boat as these two. Chavez won greater percentages in part due to having the fortune of ruling during an oil boom and in part because democratic process in Venezuela was compromised more and more severely than in Hungary or Turkey, but he never tried to win over the opposition.

Hitler on the other hand worked to be geniunely popular with everyone. It didn't work with everyone of course, but he tried to be the Chancellor of all Germans (excluding Jews whom he didn't consider as human, let alone German). He failed of course and he had many who were too vocal killed obviously, but his core intent was different, which in turn also made him far more powerful.

I'm not saying this to show these clowns are somehow worse than Hitler, they aren't. I'm saying this to show there is notable difference between them. Truth to be told totalitarians are worse than mere authoritarians to begin with.

McHrozni

That comparison is a bit apples and oranges. Orban and Erdogan and Chavez/Maduro still care about running a facade of democracy, so there are official opposition parties that criticize them and elections every four or five years. Hitler calculated once how many socialist MPs he had to lock up in addition to all the communist ones, gave a vague promise to the Center party, put the SA on the balconies of the Reichstag so they'd all vote for the Enabling Act, a few months later disbanded all political parties, and that was the end of democracy.

 

[Upchurch]

But his conviction for refusing black tenants in his apartment buildings does give us a clue.

As does his birtherism and apparent qualifications for "****-hole countries"

 

[ddt]

As does his birtherism and apparent qualifications for "****-hole countries"

Absolutely. The tenant discrimination suit came first to mind as it was long before he had any political aspirations (in 1973), just like his ads on the Central Park jogger case (1989).

There's even a separate wiki page on Trump's racism!

 

[Fudbucker]

We're both in the same boat then - I'm deeply suspicious of people who ask stupid questions, especially when the answer is right in front of them.



Nope. I haven't read it, so I'm not going to agree with it. And Brittanica? Have I gone through a time warp to the 1970s? Surely, you mean Wikipedia?

Anyway, I have to confess to never having read a single encyclopaedia article on the Holocaust and have no intention of ever doing so.



Extremely well-written post from every angle.

Thanks!

Unlike Wiki, not just anyone can edit Britannica. The passage I linked to is one paragraph.

If it's true that you have a history of saying "outrageous crap just to stir things up", I'm surprised you're objecting to my question so much.

 

[The Don]

Absolutely. The tenant discrimination suit came first to mind as it was long before he had any political aspirations (in 1973), just like his ads on the Central Park jogger case (1989).

There's even a separate wiki page on Trump's racism!

Ah, but all of that was in the past and as we all know, Donald Trump had some kind of epiphany when he suddenly became religious, rabidly pro-second amendment and a Republican. Anything said before that epiphany can be discounted because he is a changed man.

OTOH anything said since that epiphany is too recent to be able to establish whether he is racist. Sure, individual statements and policies can be taken somewhat out of context and be interpreted as being racist but that can be true of anyone. You need an extended "body of work" over decades to demonstrate racism and in this case, due to the epiphany, it's impossible

 

[Hlafordlaes]

@OP - Why should any comparison be fair? And what is "fair?" Which "Trump" are you referring to, the one this minute, or the one last? Can I pick my own best quotes? If intentions lead to actions, aren't timing differences important here? After all, your boy is just getting started. No one has burned down the Capitol building yet, even if the most very innocent are being dragged into prison and needless human misery already.

 

[ddt]

Ah, but all of that was in the past and as we all know, Donald Trump had some kind of epiphany when he suddenly became religious, rabidly pro-second amendment and a Republican. Anything said before that epiphany can be discounted because he is a changed man.

OTOH anything said since that epiphany is too recent to be able to establish whether he is racist. Sure, individual statements and policies can be taken somewhat out of context and be interpreted as being racist but that can be true of anyone. You need an extended "body of work" over decades to demonstrate racism and in this case, due to the epiphany, it's impossible

That's why he called the protestors in Charlottesville "fine people". And can you say "Mexican judge"?

 

[Drewbot]

Obviously, an advertising agency wrote that text, and they made no reference to the race of the suspects (but did mention an inclusive list of races for the general populace - sounds much like virtue signalling). We don't know what Trump spurred to order and pay for the ad in the first place.

But his conviction for refusing black tenants in his apartment buildings does give us a clue.

Of course someone who owns valuable real estate in manhattan is going to want to reduce crime. It was basically a campaign ad to get Guliani elected.

 

[applecorped]

At this point truthers make more sense than the anti Trump posters

 

[applecorped]

If the assumption turns out to be unfounded, who cares?.

Lol, what does it matter anymore!?


And nothing was learned in 2016

 

[applecorped]

I've long maintained that those who compare any politician to Hitler are not attempting to overstate the evil of the politician, or to understate the evil of Hitler. They are trying to puff up their own bravery in standing up to (Trump/Obama/Bush) as the modern day equivalent of the Society of the White Rose. It's pretty pathetic.

This


Trump broke the Skeptics here

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't like to brag, but I called it.

 

[theprestige]

Heh. I've actually been asking about this for a while. Bush was already Hitler, remember? Where do you go from there? Is Trump supposed to be Double Hitler? Hitler 3000?

Well, now we know. George W. Bush was "Hitler", but Donald J. Trump is literally worse than Hitler. Mark my words: "Worse Than Hitler" will be on anti-Trump t-shirts within a year.

 

[theprestige]

We're allowed to point out when current events parallel those of history, but only when that history isn't of late 1930's Germany?

Lots of events parallel other events, but context and consilience matter a lot.

The Allies marched all over Europe in 1944-1945. This roughly parallels Napoleon marching all over Europe in the first half of the previous century. But we do not draw from this an unfavorable comparison, of the Allied offensive against Nazi Germany, to Napoleonic imperialism.

 

[dudalb]

I love how all the "freedom loving" conservatives here are jumping on board the authoritarian rule train.

 

[dudalb]

Ah, but all of that was in the past and as we all know, Donald Trump had some kind of epiphany when he suddenly became religious, rabidly pro-second amendment and a Republican. Anything said before that epiphany can be discounted because he is a changed man.

OTOH anything said since that epiphany is too recent to be able to establish whether he is racist. Sure, individual statements and policies can be taken somewhat out of context and be interpreted as being racist but that can be true of anyone. You need an extended "body of work" over decades to demonstrate racism and in this case, due to the epiphany, it's impossible

Actually, Donald Trump as president made me VERY pro second amendment.

 

[Upchurch]

Lots of events parallel other events, but context and consilience matter a lot.

The Allies marched all over Europe in 1944-1945. This roughly parallels Napoleon marching all over Europe in the first half of the previous century. But we do not draw from this an unfavorable comparison, of the Allied offensive against Nazi Germany, to Napoleonic imperialism.

Speaking of context, we largely don't compare the Allied offensive to Napoleonic imperialism because the Allied offensive was not imperialistic. There was never any intent to form an Allied Empire. Arguably, the Allied aim was exactly the opposite of that.

A comparison you could make, and many people have made, is between Hitler and Napoleon, whom Hitler admired, specifically because of their imperial ambitions.

Now, if you want to argue against my comparison based on some context, feel free. To reiterate,

I’m suggesting that [Trump] is using a very similar tactic [to Hitler]: single out a powerless minorities in society, vilify them far our of proportion to anything they could actually have done, make their “crimes” as a people the source of all the nation’s woes, and make them, as a people, illegal.

 

[theprestige]

I love how all the "freedom loving" conservatives here are jumping on board the authoritarian rule train.

You should try actually talking to the conservatives here, instead of hosting imaginary tea parties for caricatures.