So what form does the resistance take?

[bruto]

I would agree that although Trump is kind of hitlerish and some of his antics are familiar, he's a second rater by comparison.

But our wish that someone had done Hitler in is retrospective. We say that now in part because the people who could have done something else to curtail his power and to prevent his ascendency did not do so. We are, at least I hope we are, not at that post-mortem stage, and less lethal remedies are still possible, even if our hope of their use fades a bit daily. It's harder to justify pre-emptive action when it's possible than it is to say after the fact that you coulda shoulda woulda.

And, of course, even if the abstract desire is real and valid, that does not mean just any one of us can or should attempt the deed. No matter how you feel about the matter, some reasonable semblance of the possibility of success needs to be present for the wish to go beyond a pipe dream.

theprestige's argument has a kind of "love it or leave it" ring to it.

 

[Hercules56]

Whenever you want. The issue here is that some of you think some people are taking it a little too seriously.

Hitler needed killing. Several people saw this and tried, bless them. It would have been better if they'd succeeded.

So you tell us: How seriously should we take Trump's neo-fascism? Because some people think it's at the needs killing stage.

Question for you: at what point on the timeline of Hitler's rise to power, consolidation of power after 1933 elections, and slow but sure installation of fascism and disctatorship and persecution in Germany, do you think it became legitimate to plan Hitler's untimely demise?

Here are some possible answers:

-After his attempted coup "The Beerhall Pustch".

-After his election of Chancellor

-After the Enabling Act and Hitler becoming dictator

-After Jews lost citizenship and faced severe restrictions under the Nuremberg Laws.

-After the first people were sent to concentration camps in 1938.

-After the first person was executed without being convicted for a crime.

-After taking Czechoslovakia

-After taking Austria.

-After opening Auschwitz.

 

[Hercules56]

Question for you: at what point on the timeline of Hitler's rise to power, consolidation of power after 1933 elections, and slow but sure installation of fascism and disctatorship and persecution in Germany, do you think it became legitimate to plan Hitler's untimely demise?

Here are some possible answers:

-After his attempted coup "The Beerhall Pustch".

-After his election of Chancellor

-After the Enabling Act and Hitler becoming dictator

-After Jews lost citizenship and faced severe restrictions under the Nuremberg Laws.

-After the first people were sent to concentration camps in 1938.

-After the first person was executed without being convicted for a crime.

-After taking Czechoslovakia

-After taking Austria.

-After opening Auschwitz.

Waiting for your answer @theprestige

 

[Emily's Cat]

Question for you: at what point on the timeline of Hitler's rise to power, consolidation of power after 1933 elections, and slow but sure installation of fascism and disctatorship and persecution in Germany, do you think it became legitimate to plan Hitler's untimely demise?

Here are some possible answers:

-After his attempted coup "The Beerhall Pustch".

-After his election of Chancellor

-After the Enabling Act and Hitler becoming dictator

-After Jews lost citizenship and faced severe restrictions under the Nuremberg Laws.

-After the first people were sent to concentration camps in 1938.

-After the first person was executed without being convicted for a crime.

-After taking Czechoslovakia

-After taking Austria.

-After opening Auschwitz.

At the highlighted point, that's when GERMAN CITIZENS would be justified in taking direct action against Hitler. Prior to that they would be justified in taking indirect political action.

 

[Hercules56]

At the highlighted point, that's when GERMAN CITIZENS would be justified in taking direct action against Hitler. Prior to that they would be justified in taking indirect political action.

Yeah, stripping innocent citizens of their rights, without any charges or conviction, simply due to their religion/ethnicity, is pretty bad.

 

[carlosy]

With regards to Drumpf, I think anything happening now would be to late anyways. If anything, it would be make things probably even worse.

 

[bruto]

Yeah, stripping innocent citizens of their rights, without any charges or conviction, simply due to their religion/ethnicity, is pretty bad.

One can agree with that, but I would suggest that "simply due to their religion/ethnicity" is not enough. It should always be true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, stripping innocent citizens of their rights, without any charges or conviction, simply due to their religion/ethnicity, is pretty bad.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic of if you're agreeing with where I drew the line.

 

[Emily's Cat]

One can agree with that, but I would suggest that "simply due to their religion/ethnicity" is not enough. It should always be true.

Sure, but Herc didn't include that in their list, and it wasn't particularly applicable to the Hitler parallel, so I don't know where to go with that.

 

[bruto]

Sure, but Herc didn't include that in their list, and it wasn't particularly applicable to the Hitler parallel, so I don't know where to go with that.

Sure enough, which is why I agreed. Herc and I share many principles but we are at odds at times over where the boundaries are, so perhaps inappropriately in the context, I threw that in.

 

[dann]

Question for you: at what point on the timeline of Hitler's rise to power, consolidation of power after 1933 elections, and slow but sure installation of fascism and disctatorship and persecution in Germany, do you think it became legitimate to plan Hitler's untimely demise?

Here are some possible answers:

-After his attempted coup "The Beerhall Pustch".

-After his election of Chancellor

-After the Enabling Act and Hitler becoming dictator

-After Jews lost citizenship and faced severe restrictions under the Nuremberg Laws.

-After the first people were sent to concentration camps in 1938.

-After the first person was executed without being convicted for a crime.

-After taking Czechoslovakia

-After taking Austria.

-After opening Auschwitz.

At the highlighted point, that's when GERMAN CITIZENS would be justified in taking direct action against Hitler. Prior to that they would be justified in taking indirect political action.

I assume that this means that Emily's Cat would find it inappropriate "to plan Trump's untimely demise" unless he goes after the Jews, whom he doesn't seem to want to persecute. For the time being, he is 'only' going after other foreigners who don't yet have citizenship. The extortion of law firms, media companies and universities, the dismantling of state-sponsored health science isn't mentioned.
As for the rest of Hercules's points, I would like to know what Emily's Cat thinks of:
-After the first people are sent to concentration camps for allegedly being 'the Radical Left', i.e. unwilling to kiss the ring.
-After the first anti-Trump protester is executed without being convicted for a crime.
-After taking Panama.
-After taking Greenland.
-After taking Canada.

 

[dann]

Sure they can, if they're the same three million people who lost an election.Trump already knows millions of people voted against him. Those same people making a big stink about how they exist and don't like him isn't going to change anything.

If people making a big stink about losing an election to Trump bothered me, I'd have moved years ago.

I don't think people who lost an election making a big production of being mad they lost an election are effective. If they were effective, they'd have won the election.

Meanwhile, I think that protests from people who lost an election are no more effective than their lack of votes was effective.

They're not huge, though. They're a subset of the people who voted against him and lost.

I'm saying it's absurd to claim that the protests are too big to be just Harris voters.

Certainly there's no large pool of disgruntled Trump voters in the Portland, OR, metro area. Nor has rural Oregon been hard hit by Trump policies yet.

Wait, do you and dann seriously believe that these protests include a significant number of right-wing voters upset with the way things are turning out?

Yes, I, for one, seriously believe that these protests include a significant number of previously right-wing voters upset with the way things are turning out!

Rachel Maddow: The American People Are Giving Trump The One-Finger Salute (MSNBC on YouTube, April 17, 2025 - 13:17 min.)
Rachel Maddow on the growing daily protests against Trump, " The ways people are standing up and saying no, and standing up and saying they reject this and standing up and giving the administration the, the one finger salute put, put it in blunt terms. They are innumerable and unpredictable and they surprise me every day that we cover this stuff."

4.26--> These crowds are out there for two of the most dynamic and most unapologetic fighting progressive in all of U.S. electoral politics, fighting the Fight Oligarchy tour. Senator Sanders' office says of the people who have been RSVPing for these events, yes, most of them are Democrats, but they say 21% of people turning out for these events are independents. And they say 8% of people turning out for these rallies are Republicans. And 8%, I know, 8% sounds like single digits, but 8%, when you're talking about, like, about like 200,000 people they've spoken to at these events thus far, that's saying something.
And huge events like these that are being done by senator Sanders and congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, huge events like these are definitely saying something about how the country feels about this political moment and about Donald Trump. And I will say, just in terms of the media, the sheer size of these events and the fact that most of them are in red states means that they're starting to get a ton of press and a ton of attention from the mainstream media. And that, of course, is starting to rattle everyone in politics on all sides, which is always fun to see.

Have you seen the polls?

Trump Approval Rating Tracker: Majority Disapprove In Latest Poll As Americans Reject New Tariffs (Forbes, April 16, 2025)
President Donald Trump has a net negative approval rating in seven of eight polls taken in the wake of his sweeping tariff announcement on April 2—though most Americans don’t think Trump will stick with the new levies, according to one survey.

What makes it so incomprehensible for the likes of you that people who voted for Trump because they thought he was going to make the economy better for the little people are upset with the way things are turnedout? Upset enough to show up for (and even RSVP for) Bernie Sanders-AOC Fight the Oligarchy rallies.

Scared yet??!
‘We got ‘em scared!’: AOC and Bernie draw massive crowds in red states (MSNBC on YouTube, April 17, 2025 - 8:47 min.)

 

[Hercules56]

Sure, but Herc didn't include that in their list, and it wasn't particularly applicable to the Hitler parallel, so I don't know where to go with that.

Still waiting for him to answer.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I, for one, seriously believe that these protests include a significant number of previously right-wing voters upset with the way things are turning out!

Not in Portland, OR they're not!

Have you seen the polls?

Low approval ratings don't typically result in anti-administration protests. Nobody took to the streets when Biden was polling low.

What makes it so incomprehensible for the likes of you that people who voted for Trump because they thought he was going to make the economy better for the little people are upset with the way things are turnedout? Upset enough to show up for (and even RSVP for) Bernie Sanders-AOC Fight the Oligarchy rallies.

It's entirely comprehensible to me that such a thing is technically possible. I just don't find it very plausible. I've seen no evidence that these turnout numbers include any significant proportion of disgruntled redcaps.

Scared yet??!
‘We got ‘em scared!’: AOC and Bernie draw massive crowds in red states (MSNBC on YouTube, April 17, 2025 - 8:47 min.)

LOL MSNBC. Likely those "massive crowds" are every single disgruntled blue voter from every single blue urban enclave in the state. You're living in fantasy land if you seriously believe redcaps are going to join with Sanders and AOC over Trump's policies.

 

[johnny karate]

LOL MSNBC. Likely those "massive crowds" are every single disgruntled blue voter from every single blue urban enclave in the state. You're living in fantasy land if you seriously believe redcaps are going to join with Sanders and AOC over Trump's policies.

Not the redcaps, no. They're deluded cult members who were always in it for the fascism. But the swing voters who bought into the MAGA propaganda, yes. Propagandizing that things are worse than they are is easy. Propagandizing that things are better than they are, not so much.

 

[bruto]

Still waiting for him to answer.

I thought I did. The remark was not entirely relevant to your post here but relevant, I think, to your equivocal attitude toward rights in general.

 

[Hercules56]

I thought I did. The remark was not entirely relevant to your post here but relevant, I think, to your equivocal attitude toward rights in general.

Not you.

 

[theprestige]

Not the redcaps, no. They're deluded cult members who were always in it for the fascism. But the swing voters who bought into the MAGA propaganda, yes. Propagandizing that things are worse than they are is easy. Propagandizing that things are better than they are, not so much.

Swing voters aren't known for their ideological passion, nor for marching in the streets when presidential approval ratings go down.

The idea that the streets are alive with the protests of Trump voters is a fantasy.

ETA: In before someone willfully misunderstands this as "the idea of disgruntled Trump voters is a fantasy".

 

[bruto]

Not you.

Oh yeah...it gets confusing. I think I know who you mean now. Good luck waiting for an answer.

 

[theprestige]

Question for you: at what point on the timeline of Hitler's rise to power, consolidation of power after 1933 elections, and slow but sure installation of fascism and disctatorship and persecution in Germany, do you think it became legitimate to plan Hitler's untimely demise?

Here are some possible answers:

-After his attempted coup "The Beerhall Pustch".

-After his election of Chancellor

-After the Enabling Act and Hitler becoming dictator

-After Jews lost citizenship and faced severe restrictions under the Nuremberg Laws.

-After the first people were sent to concentration camps in 1938.

-After the first person was executed without being convicted for a crime.

-After taking Czechoslovakia

-After taking Austria.

-After opening Auschwitz.

Tough call. Killing him too early opens Germany up to Soviet annexation, a fate I wouldn't wish even on Nazis.

But killing him too late... Is too late.

Either way, it's moot. Nobody knew it was the Hitler track until Hitler mapped it out. Now you know what the Hitler track looks like, you should take decisive action the moment you realize someone's on it.

Once you get to Trump = Hitler, it doesn't matter when it made the most sense to go after Hitler. All that matters is you're convinced Trump has already crossed that Rubicon.

The only reason to stay your hand is if you don't think he's another Hitler, and think there's a good chance he won't become another Hitler. In which case, you're being irresponsibly disingenuous by making the comparison.

 

[bruto]

Tough call. Killing him too early opens Germany up to Soviet annexation, a fate I wouldn't wish even on Nazis.

But killing him too late... Is too late.

Either way, it's moot. Nobody knew it was the Hitler track until Hitler mapped it out. Now you know what the Hitler track looks like, you should take decisive action the moment you realize someone's on it.

Once you get to Trump = Hitler, it doesn't matter when it made the most sense to go after Hitler. All that matters is you're convinced Trump has already crossed that Rubicon.

The only reason to stay your hand is if you don't think he's another Hitler, and think there's a good chance he won't become another Hitler. In which case, you're being irresponsibly disingenuous by making the comparison.

That depends on your presumption that the only decisive action possible when the Hitler track is detected is assassination. One might hope that having learned something from history, it should be possible to find non-murderous decisive action before it's too late - that the issue of whether he's another Hitler in posse and the issue of whether there's a chance he won't become what Hitler eventually became are two different things, because we can at least hope we've learned something from history. In any case, history rarely repeats itself verbatim, and I think there's a difference between seeing ominous parallels and seeing equality.

 

[johnny karate]

Swing voters aren't known for their ideological passion, nor for marching in the streets when presidential approval ratings go down.

The idea that the streets are alive with the protests of Trump voters is a fantasy.

ETA: In before someone willfully misunderstands this as "the idea of disgruntled Trump voters is a fantasy".

That you think this is about ideology is why your premise is flawed. People aren't taking to the streets because of "presidential approval ratings". Trump and his fascist goons are actively threatening and destroying American institutions that even people who voted for him like and need.

 

[Hercules56]

Swing voters aren't known for their ideological passion, nor for marching in the streets when presidential approval ratings go down.

The idea that the streets are alive with the protests of Trump voters is a fantasy..

Now that ICE is detaining natural-born US citizens, the streets being filled with protesters is not too far away. And that will probably include some Trump voters.

 

[theprestige]

That you think this is about ideology is why your premise is flawed. People aren't taking to the streets because of "presidential approval ratings".

Tell it to dann. It's his argument.

 

[johnny karate]

Tell it to dann. It's his argument.

dann argued that the protests are about "presidential approval ratings" as opposed to the worsening of material conditions under Trump? I would like to see you quote the post that you think supports this claim.

 

[Hercules56]

Tell it to dann. It's his argument.

Do you think protests are justified now that Trump is detaining natural-born US citizens?

 

[theprestige]

dann argued that the protests are about "presidential approval ratings" as opposed to the worsening of material conditions under Trump? I would like to see you quote the post that you think supports this claim.

dann argued that the low approval ratings supported the claim that Trump voters are taking to the streets in significant numbers.

 

[Hercules56]

In a twisted way, I kinda hope ICE does deport a natural born citizen. And refuse to reverse this. That way we can finally get this party started.

 

[theprestige]

Do you think protests are justified now that Trump is detaining natural-born US citizens?

I think protests are always justified.

 

[theprestige]

In a twisted way, I kinda hope ICE does deport a natural born citizen. And refuse to reverse this. That way we can finally get this party started.

ICE isn't in charge of that decision. It would be an immigration court judge.

Judges, incidentally, don't often reverse their rulings. They can get overridden on appeal, though.

 

[Hercules56]

ICE isn't in charge of that decision. It would be an immigration court judge.

Judges, incidentally, don't often reverse their rulings. They can get overridden on appeal, though.

Which judge ordered Garcia to be deported?

 

[theprestige]

Which judge ordered Garcia to be deported?

You're finally starting to ask the right questions! Go find the ruling; then maybe I'll have an opinion and we can debate.

 

[Resume]

I think protests are always justified.

Even those involving those with student visas protesting U,S. policies which might "hinder the Middle East" peace process per J.D. Vance?

 

[theprestige]

Even those involving those with student visas protesting U,S. policies which might "hinder the Middle East" peace process per J.D. Vance?

Yes, of course. The way I see it, the only justification a protest needs is that someone wants to make it.

 

[Hercules56]

You're finally starting to ask the right questions! Go find the ruling; then maybe I'll have an opinion and we can debate.

I've done a whole bunch of research and cannot find a court ordering Garcia sent home.

 

[kookbreaker]

Radical Leftist Communist Socialist DEI Hire David Brooks calls for National Civic Uprising against Trump.

Conservative NYT Columnist David Brooks Calls for ‘National Civic Uprising’ to Defeat Trumpism – Complete With ‘Mass Rallies, Strikes’

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has called for a mass uprising to oppose President Donald Trump, going so far as to quote The Communist Manifesto.

www.mediaite.com

 

[Hercules56]

Yes, of course. The way I see it, the only justification a protest needs is that someone wants to make it.

Looking through more articles. See nothing about any judge deciding to deport Garcia. All I see is constant mentioning of the administrative error by ICE.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

dann argued that the low approval ratings supported the claim that Trump voters are taking to the streets in significant numbers.

Which is not the same as saying that low approval ratings are the *impetus* for Trump voters' taking to the streets, etc. That's what you seemed to be saying when you wrote: "Swing voters aren't known for their ideological passion, nor for marching in the streets when presidential approval ratings go down."

If that isn't what you meant, now is a great opportunity to clarify what you did.

 

[theprestige]

I've done a whole bunch of research and cannot find a court ordering Garcia sent home.

Then we have nothing to talk about.

 

[theprestige]

Which is not the same as saying that low approval ratings are the *impetus* for Trump voters' taking to the streets, etc. That's what you seemed to be saying when you wrote: "Swing voters aren't known for their ideological passion, nor for marching in the streets when presidential approval ratings go down."

If that isn't what you meant, now is a great opportunity to clarify what you did.

Done and done. I was responding to dann's argument in the context of that argument. You misunderstood. I clarified. Are you still misunderstanding?