lawmakers' failure to appreciate Me

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Are those 2 former Presidents? You continue to compare what 1 or 2 Dems. say or compare what Pres. Obama said 1 or 2 times to what our current President says hundreds of times and somehow you think that is the same. How is that having a set of rules when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?

Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. There is no comparing him to any other politician of any party.

Another Trumper will be leaving the WH today - beating his wives. I got a good laugh yesterday reading Kelly's statements about him. Kelly was supposed to be the "grownup" in the room and he is no better than the rest of this admin.

Oh, I see. So by some logic, it's ok for US Senators and Governors/presidential candidates to label people as traitors, but that right is forfeited when one becomes president. That makes all kinds of sense. All kinds of sense.

"what 1 or 2 Dems. say "

I didn't pick 1 or 2 obscure names out of democratic registration lists. Obama was a POTUS, and he said "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time". Hilary said we are deplorable and irredeemable. But it's only problematic when a Republican acts in this regard.

"when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?"

You're all over the place. First you said Trump acted inappropriately because he is president, and presidents (unlike everyone else) shouldn't label people as traitors. Now you are saying that it's only unethical to call someone a traitor if they do it multiple times?

So what's the standard? Who can label their opponents as traitors, and who can't? And who can do it how many times before it's unethical?

Anything to protect your side, anything to bash the other side. It's a joke. And it's why Trump won.

"Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. "

I agree he's vile and petty. So was Hilary. She's not anywhere near as outwardly vulgar or crass or sophomoric as Trump. But I can make a compelling case, based on irrefutable facts, that she's vile and petty. But she has a (D) after her name, so you don't call her out on it.

Anyway, I look forward to your telling us who can use the word traitor, and how many times, so we can clear that up and apply it fairly and consistently.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, I see. So by some logic, it's ok for US Senators and Governors/presidential candidates to label people as traitors, but that right is forfeited when one becomes president. That makes all kinds of sense. All kinds of sense. Did I say that? Please point it out. I've asked you before when you say I did something to point it out and you never do.

"what 1 or 2 Dems. say "

I didn't pick 1 or 2 obscure names out of democratic registration lists. Obama was a POTUS, and he said "Republicans gotta stop just hatin' all the time"Yet somehow that is worse that calling people who don't clap for Trump "unAmerican" or "treasonous". You don't think the Repub. showed hate torwards Obama?. Hilary said we are deplorable and irredeemable. But it's only problematic when a Republican acts in this regard. Right - he said it one time. You made my point - thanks. Hillary appologized the very next day but it doesn't matter to you. You just keep bringing it up again and again. When people in the RNC call Trump a deplorable somehow that is not the same as when Hillary uses that exact same word. Double standard????

"when you compare what someone did one time with what someone does mulitple times?"

You're all over the place. First you said Trump acted inappropriately because he is president, and presidents (unlike everyone else) shouldn't label people as traitors. Now you are saying that it's only unethical to call someone a traitor if they do it multiple times?No, I'm not all over the place. I"m saying I can give somone the benefit of the doubt when they say it 1or 2 times. You continue to try to equate somone saying something1 time with somone saying vulgar things repeatedly.

So what's the standard? Who can label their opponents as traitors, and who can'tI guess you and I have different standards bc I can't recall any Dems. calling Repubs. treasonous for not clapping during a speach. ? And who can do it how many times before it's unethical?about 1/100 of the amount of times Trump does it.

Anything to protect your side, anything to bash the other side. It's a joke. And it's why Trump won.You are the one here who constantly starts threads moaning about what a Dem. said, not me. 1,000 of posts with 99.5% here complaining about Dems. Night, day, weekend, late at night. Your always on here complaining about something. Not me.

"Pres. Trump is a vile, petty, sad man. "

I agree he's vile and petty. So was Hilary. She's not anywhere near as outwardly vulgar or crass or sophomoric as Trump. But I can make a compelling case, based on irrefutable facts, that she's vile and petty. But she has a (D) after her name, so you don't call her out on it.

Anyway, I look forward to your telling us who can use the word traitor, and how many times, so we can clear that up and apply it fairly and consistently.

I just did tell you. So if somone shoots a Dem. and says they did it bc they are a traitor does Trump deserve blame for it?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The USA has never shown off it's military might on its own soil and for good reason. Perhaps a little background.........

This isn't totally true. I believe we have after a few wars and Kennedy might have done a parade with military gear. That being said, these days I think a parade just to chest thump and stroke Trump's ego is pretty offensive to most.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, states like California and New York have had their massive overspending and high taxes, especially high property taxes, subsidized by a lot of red states who could not lower their federal taxes as much as the high tax states because their itemized property taxes were so much lower.

We'll file this under things you just made up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Jeff, it wasn't close at all. I understand you coming unglued initially but it's time to put on your best big boy pants and stop petting puppies in a safe space.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

[Got Stripers]

Love the comment by one of the Republican's commenting on the parade, stating confidence is silent and insecurity is loud. Very fitting I thought, because this POTUS has shown he is insecure and vain. To bitch about military support and spending issues, only to want to put a very costly parade together is just so wrong. The Russians need to, the North Koreans need to and China possibly might need to, we don't need to strut our stuff to prove to anyone who has the bigger penis.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You pointed out, which means you thought it important, that booker and dean are not presidents like trump. Correct, wrong but not at the level of POTUS. You Said that somehow it’s more egregious for a potus to say that, then you said it’s based on how many times one says it. Kind of hard to follow, you were rambling and all over the place and very inconsistent.I don't think I'm being inconsistent. Wrong on any level but especially egregious for POTUS. I'm willing to give someone a pass for saying something 1 or 2 times but as some point you can't forgive them any more.

Sure the gop hated obama. Like the dems hate trump. But again, obama gets a pass for attacking republicans, but you criticize trump for attacking democrats. no one is giving him a pass but Trump does it hundreds of time more than any politician.

Here’s one for you...how would you describe the democrats refusal to celebrate historically low black unemployment? How would you describe their decision to sit on their hands with scowls on their faces, and refuse to celebrate the drop in black unemployment, just because they hate the guy who pointed it out? BC Trump had practically nothing to do with it. He takes all of the credit for a great economy that he inherited. I've always said Pres. have less impact on the economy than they get credit for. I'm willing to give POTUS credit/blame after a year.

Now you are changing again, saying what bothers you is that trump called them treasonous for not clapping. So it’s ok to call people traitors for the reasons that booker and deanDid Cotton send a letter to Iranian leaders saying ignore any deal Pres. Obama signed because it would be voided. So he (and other Repub) undermined our Pred. did it, but not ok to do it for the reason that trump did it.

So to recap, you say it’s ok that booker and dean did it, but not ok that trump did it, because
Trump is president.

Trump did it more times than they did it ( once or twice is ok, but 3 is the magic number).

Trump said it in response to reaction to his speech.

So the appropriateness of calling someone a traitor depends on your job title, whether or not you have done it twice already, and whether or not it’s a reaction to an audience snubbing your applause line in a speech.

Got it.

And when I criticize those I disagree with, I am complaining. When you do it, well I’m not sure what you claim it to be, but it’s more noble than when I do it. I certainly don't No hypocrisy there, no sir.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it has more to do w/your vile statements.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

And Hilary won NV, CO, MN, NH, and ME by a narrow margin - "less than a few percent".

Spence, if you speculate on what would have happened if Trump lost all the states that were decided by less than a few percent, and assume Hilary kept all the states that she won by less than a few percent, I will concede she would have won. What I don't concede, is that there's any value whatsoever, in considering that hypothetical. "If" my aunt had wheels she'd be a tea cart.

They each took a handful of states by a few percent. Trump didn't win all the close calls.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I think it has more to do w/your vile statements.

"C Trump had practically nothing to do with it. He takes all of the credit for a great economy that he inherited. I've always said Pres. have less impact on the economy than they get credit for"

Then why not just celebrate the fact that unemployment is low for blacks? Why does he have to have anything to do with acknowledging that low black unemployment is a result that regardless of who did what, is worth celebrating and uniting around?

"I'm willing to give POTUS credit/blame after a year.
"

You can start the clock whenever you want on giving him credit/blame. Many business leaders will say there was a boost in confidence that began when he won. Confidence matters. Not saying there was zero confidence in Obama, but Trump injected more business confidence than Hilary would have.

"Did Cotton send a letter to Iranian leaders saying ignore any deal Pres. Obama signed because it would be voided"

Not exactly. He said that any deal was not permanent. But your point is valid, he was clearly undermining the president. And Trump also has a valid point, when he says that certain Democrats at the DOJ, likely allowed their personal biases to influence investigations. They were also undermining our free and fair election process, unless you see nothing concerning about the things we know so far.

"I think it has more to do w/your vile statements."

I don't make unsubstantiated criticisms, and I often concede my side is wrong and the other side is right.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Look at the electoral map and actual vote counts. Trump managed to flip three critical swing states (that Obama won) by less than a few percent. That cost Clinton the race...it was very close.

I sympathize with you Jeff, but the "actual vote counts" part makes it seem as though you lack an understanding of the process. I like to think you are more intelligent than that but you keep trying to prove me wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

US President Donald Trump has asked the Pentagon to organise a large military parade in the nation's capital.

Nationalism being masked in patriotism

Parade is a generally stupid idea. But keep up all this pseudo Nationalism / Fascism stuff and you will have 4 more years to apply it.

Like those people that are looking for volunteers to lie down in front the parade tanks like it is Tienanmen Square (ya know - REAL Oppression).

Yeh! That'll show American who is sane.

Originally Posted by spence

Clinton lost by a razor thin margin and likely would have won if the investigation had been put to bed. You're just swimming in conspiracy theories now which is exactly what Trump wants.

Yep - she was a real bastion of Truth. So Trustworthy PresidentSlimeball beat her.

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't totally true. I believe we have after a few wars and Kennedy might have done a parade with military gear. That being said, these days I think a parade just to chest thump and stroke Trump's ego is pretty offensive to most.

Using the criteria of previous military parades you must actually win first. So that would exclude Kennedy, and everyone after with the possible exception of Regan/Bush Cold War (that got again screwed up) or Bush the Elder for PG1.

Originally Posted by spence

We'll file this under things you just made up.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

We'll file this under things you just made up.

Didn't make it up. It's a fact.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

We'll file this under things you just made up.

He was exactly correct.

I live in a very high tax state. High state taxes, high local taxes, high sales taxes. I deduct that.

People who live, for example, in FL and the Carolinas, can't make that same deduction, because their state/local taxes aren't high enough

The feds need what they need from all of us. So to offset the high SALT deductions in high-tax states (which are liberal states), people in other states have to pay more. They absolutely pay higher federal income taxes, to subsidize the SALT deductions which we enjoy, and which are not available to them.

I would just love to see you try and make that wrong.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Didn't make it up. It's a fact.

I'd love to see a study of that then. Just because you have high deductions doesn't mean you contribute net less...because you also have very high taxable incomes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And Hilary won NV, CO, MN, NH, and ME by a narrow margin - "less than a few percent".

Clinton won CO by 5 points, that's a decent margin. As for the others, they represent very few electoral votes compared to the super thin margins in PA (.7%), WI (.7%) and MI (.3%).

Simple fact is Clinton could have easily won had she not had the FBI continuing to drag her through the mud just days before the election.

[Pete F.]

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected. This is how we ended up with Hillary, Bernie and Trump and the more moderates fell by the wayside.
This is really important to our democracy
Gerrymandering Squeezes out the Political Middle
A major victim of partisan gerrymanders and closed party primaries is the moderate middle – moderate voters and centrist politicians willing to work with the other side. Moderates and centrists get squeezed out by gerrymandering. Southern Republicans manipulated district maps to kill off conservative southern Democrats and northern Democrats did the same to moderate House Republicans in the Northeast.

This system has accelerated the rise to power of extremists. This happens largely because in most gerrymandered districts, primary elections have become more decisive than the general election, and in primaries the de facto power of decision rests with the party faithful.

Typically, primary turnout is low, sometimes extremely low. In the 2014 mid-term elections, Republican primary turnout nationwide was 8.9% of the elctorate; for Democrats, it was 14.5%. In seven state primaries, turnout fell below 4%. Such tiny turnouts give enormous leverage to hardcore partisan voters, well-funded special interest groups and more extreme, ideological candidates



Because primary voters often differ significantly in the views from average voters, there is often a disconnect between the broad electorate and the politicians who win primaries and get elected. In recent years, the widespread victories of partisan extremists fuels gridlock in Washington.

“The combination of closed party primaries, gerrymandering of districts and money – that’s why the system is broken,” says eight-term, former Oklahoma Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards. “This problem is deep, deep. The political system is more and more disconnected from the country. We have a system where what the majority of the voters might prefer doesn’t matter because the parties control the process, the parties limit their choices.”

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected.

everyone thinks they are a "moderate"....and....Trump wasn't even a politician and he got elected President....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Simple fact is Clinton could have easily won had she not had the FBI continuing to drag her through the mud just days before the election.

you don't know this...and it doesn't matter

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd love to see a study of that then. Just because you have high deductions doesn't mean you contribute net less...because you also have very high taxable incomes.

SALT deductions are disproportionately available in certain states - liberal, high tax states. Everyone else's tax rates are higher than they would be, if those deductions did not exist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I hate to just hammer one point but i think this discussion is due to the inability of moderates to get thru the primaries and get elected. .”

Agreed 100%.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

everyone thinks they are a "moderate"....and....Trump wasn't even a politician and he got elected President....

Yes, he obviously isn't a politician
Just a populist telling you what you want to hear, it would have been a more interesting race if he had been up against the other populist, the Limbaugh of the Left, Bernie
though Bernie does stay on message

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Yes, he obviously isn't a politician
Just a populist telling you what you want to hear, it would have been a more interesting race if he had been up against the other populist, the Limbaugh of the Left, Bernie
though Bernie does stay on message

moderate politicians don't tell you what you want to hear?

[Jim in CT]

Chuck Schumer called for a military parade in 2104. My my, how about that. Now, maybe he’ll be brave enough to lie down in front of a tank since he would have us believe that there no difference between America and China. Oh no, nationalism is coming, tomorrow our kids will be goose-stepping at recess!!

When outrage at mitary parades is this selective, that also means said outrage is fake. They want to draw a straight line from trump to Hitler. The constitution. Is still there. If it survived the last eight years of el deuce, it will survive the next 3.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26893...ign=benshapiro
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

SALT deductions are disproportionately available in certain states - liberal, high tax states. Everyone else's tax rates are higher than they would be, if those deductions did not exist.

But those high deductions are still paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. This is why the studies show Red states are on average consuming more Federal dollars than they provide. You're tax deduction theory is already factored in...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

But those high deductions are still paying a disproportionate amount of taxes. This is why the studies show Red states are on average consuming more Federal dollars than they provide. You're tax deduction theory is already factored in...

But they would be paying even more federal taxes if they didn't have the higher deductions. What is being subsidized, is the high taxes of those who have to pay in liberal spending states. It makes it more palatable to taxpayers in states with the high taxes required to pay for programs if they can deduct high property taxes to defray the federal tax burden. It makes it a little more likely that tax payers in high tax states will complain about excessive state spending if they can't buffer that with federal deductions.

But, even though money is recouped back to the state because of federal deductions, those high tax states still manage to overspend and get into unsustainable debt.

[Pete F.]

Here is what scares me, and it is nothing new, in fact it predates Trump by quite a bit. An interesting tidbit is that Trump in 2000 when he started his first campaign for President with the Reform Party called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler-lover".
Disturbing Parallels Between America & 1930s Germany
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 BY BRYAN HYDE
Sharing is caring!
The practice of invoking a comparison between your opponent’s argument and Nazi ideology is such a common occurrence in internet discussions that, years ago, an author and attorney named Mike Godwin coined a tongue-in-cheek adage known as “Godwin’s Law.”

Strictly speaking, this tactic constitutes an informal fallacy in that it relies upon hyperbole in an attempt to derail a person’s arguments via guilt by association.

I’ll be the first to admit that it is overused.

A case in point is how the president of any nation that refuses to submit to the demands of our own national policy makers is invariably labeled as “the next Hitler.”

As the political ramp up to a war with Iran continues, we’ll all have plenty of opportunity to see this practice in action.

The sad thing about Godwin’s Law is that legitimate comparisons can be drawn between 1930’s Germany and the American populace today.

That’s not the same thing as saying that our government is led by Nazis or that our leaders are rounding up the undesirables to be systematically exterminated.

It simply means that the same types of trends that blinded Germans to the potential of Adolf Hitler can be found within our society today.

Too many Americans believe that Germans as a whole were arrogant and evil and knew what Hitler was capable of from the very beginning.

But that’s not the case at all.

We forget that Germany in the 1930’s was a turbulent place economically and politically. With hyper-inflation ravaging the value of the German mark, a wheelbarrow full of money was required to purchase a mere loaf of bread.

On top of the financial unrest was the fear of takeover by the Bolsheviks who had recently succeeded in turning Russia into a giant Soviet prison camp.

In 1933, a terrorist firebombing of the German Reichstag building added another dimension to the panic felt by many German citizens.

On top of all this fear of economic distress, communism and terrorism, were the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which was still punishing the Germans for their part in the First World War.

With their dignity in tatters, encompassed by trouble on every side, it is understandable that a charismatic leader might come forward–especially if that leader offered strong solutions to the problems vexing Germany.

But in order to accomplish the monumental task of fixing the problems and leading Germany to what many Germans considered its proper status among the nations, that leader would require that the German people trust him with absolute power.

By playing upon their fears, Hitler persuaded the German people to grant him unprecedented power and the long downhill slide to their well documented destruction began.

So where are the parallels in our society?

Our economy is–to put it mildly–on shaky ground thanks to a dollar that has lost over 95% of its purchasing power since 1913 and mounting public and private debts have our markets as twitchy as a tightrope walker juggling hornet nests.

The solution pursued by those who make our nation’s monetary policy is to sell more bonds (go further in debt) to the Federal Reserve and have it print more money which will, in turn, further reduce the buying power of the dollar through inflation.

Those industries that have stronger political connections than others (read fascism) are treated to taxpayer-funded bailouts for being “too big to fail.”

Since September 11th of 2001, the American people have lived in an unending cycle of fear and a corresponding expansion of government powers to address terrorism abroad while building a garrison state here at home.

Consider that in 2001, we lost just under 3,000 U.S. citizens in the 9/11 attacks, but during that same year homegrown American criminals murdered FOUR TIMES that number.

Statistically, your likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is about the same as that of dying of a spider bite.

But when our leaders tell us that they need to spy on our phone calls, e-mails, bank accounts and library transactions, a surprising number of modern Americans fall into line just as their German counterparts did during the ascendancy of the Third Reich.

When our government claims power to kidnap, torture, detain indefinitely or even murder American citizens without due process–in the name of fighting terror–many consider it their patriotic duty to support these actions just as the Germans of the 1930’s did.

Just as Hitler justified his aggression against other nations as acting in Germany’s self defense, too many Americans view any use of military force as automatically righteous and justified without measuring such actions against the standards of Just War.

And just as patriotic Germans shouted down those who questioned Hitler’s aggression, self-styled “great Americans” consider it their patriotic duty to silence those who question our leaders’ actions.

One of the most telling similarities between Nazi Germany and modern America is a growing acceptance of the practice of marginalizing and dehumanizing a targeted group of people who are blamed for the ills of our nation.

In Germany it was the Jews who bore the brunt of this treatment as German society methodically marked them for destruction, first by innuendo, next by legal sanction and finally by the direct action of rounding them up and exterminating them.

Other groups including gypsies, communists, homosexuals and those with permanent disabilities were labeled as being a danger to the Fatherland and likewise targeted for elimination.

We must remember that the process by which the Final Solution was implemented was as gradual as it was deliberate.

Had Hitler started rounding up the Jews in the spring of 1933 the German people could have quickly discerned what he was doing and withheld their support.

By first carefully sowing seeds of distrust for the Jews and then implementing laws that forbade them to be a legitimate part of German society, the Nazis were able to convince enough Germans that Jews were somehow not really people at all.

It’s easy to picture a majority of German people as possessing a fanatical hatred for the Jews, but in reality it was primarily their calloused indifference that allowed the atrocities of the Third Reich to move forward virtually unopposed.

Too few Germans took the time to give serious thought to the official propaganda they’d been fed regarding the Jews and Hitler’s efforts to “defend” the Fatherland.

By the time some Germans realized what was being done in their names, it was too dangerous to speak out.

The current hysteria in America over Muslims in general is disturbingly familiar to those who have studied the methods used to dehumanize the so-called undesirables in 1930’s Germany.

The propaganda flows daily from various media sources who are vigorously trying to inflame public opinion against Muslims everywhere, not just those in America.

Thus far the propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Muslims are an existential threat to our nation has succeeded in rousing the right wing through its highly contrived tale of a so-called “Victory Mosque to be built at Ground Zero” of the 9/11 attacks.

Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

Never has information been so easy to come by, and yet the tried and true methods of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement are being employed at this moment.

********************

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is what scares me, and it is nothing new, in fact it predates Trump by quite a bit. An interesting tidbit is that Trump in 2000 when he started his first campaign for President with the Reform Party called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler-lover".
Disturbing Parallels Between America & 1930s Germany
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 BY BRYAN HYDE
Sharing is caring!
The practice of invoking a comparison between your opponent’s argument and Nazi ideology is such a common occurrence in internet discussions that, years ago, an author and attorney named Mike Godwin coined a tongue-in-cheek adage known as “Godwin’s Law.”

Strictly speaking, this tactic constitutes an informal fallacy in that it relies upon hyperbole in an attempt to derail a person’s arguments via guilt by association.

I’ll be the first to admit that it is overused.

A case in point is how the president of any nation that refuses to submit to the demands of our own national policy makers is invariably labeled as “the next Hitler.”

As the political ramp up to a war with Iran continues, we’ll all have plenty of opportunity to see this practice in action.

The sad thing about Godwin’s Law is that legitimate comparisons can be drawn between 1930’s Germany and the American populace today.

That’s not the same thing as saying that our government is led by Nazis or that our leaders are rounding up the undesirables to be systematically exterminated.

It simply means that the same types of trends that blinded Germans to the potential of Adolf Hitler can be found within our society today.

Too many Americans believe that Germans as a whole were arrogant and evil and knew what Hitler was capable of from the very beginning.

But that’s not the case at all.

We forget that Germany in the 1930’s was a turbulent place economically and politically. With hyper-inflation ravaging the value of the German mark, a wheelbarrow full of money was required to purchase a mere loaf of bread.

On top of the financial unrest was the fear of takeover by the Bolsheviks who had recently succeeded in turning Russia into a giant Soviet prison camp.

In 1933, a terrorist firebombing of the German Reichstag building added another dimension to the panic felt by many German citizens.

On top of all this fear of economic distress, communism and terrorism, were the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which was still punishing the Germans for their part in the First World War.

With their dignity in tatters, encompassed by trouble on every side, it is understandable that a charismatic leader might come forward–especially if that leader offered strong solutions to the problems vexing Germany.

But in order to accomplish the monumental task of fixing the problems and leading Germany to what many Germans considered its proper status among the nations, that leader would require that the German people trust him with absolute power.

By playing upon their fears, Hitler persuaded the German people to grant him unprecedented power and the long downhill slide to their well documented destruction began.

So where are the parallels in our society?

Our economy is–to put it mildly–on shaky ground thanks to a dollar that has lost over 95% of its purchasing power since 1913 and mounting public and private debts have our markets as twitchy as a tightrope walker juggling hornet nests.

The solution pursued by those who make our nation’s monetary policy is to sell more bonds (go further in debt) to the Federal Reserve and have it print more money which will, in turn, further reduce the buying power of the dollar through inflation.

Those industries that have stronger political connections than others (read fascism) are treated to taxpayer-funded bailouts for being “too big to fail.”

Since September 11th of 2001, the American people have lived in an unending cycle of fear and a corresponding expansion of government powers to address terrorism abroad while building a garrison state here at home.

Consider that in 2001, we lost just under 3,000 U.S. citizens in the 9/11 attacks, but during that same year homegrown American criminals murdered FOUR TIMES that number.

Statistically, your likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is about the same as that of dying of a spider bite.

But when our leaders tell us that they need to spy on our phone calls, e-mails, bank accounts and library transactions, a surprising number of modern Americans fall into line just as their German counterparts did during the ascendancy of the Third Reich.

When our government claims power to kidnap, torture, detain indefinitely or even murder American citizens without due process–in the name of fighting terror–many consider it their patriotic duty to support these actions just as the Germans of the 1930’s did.

Just as Hitler justified his aggression against other nations as acting in Germany’s self defense, too many Americans view any use of military force as automatically righteous and justified without measuring such actions against the standards of Just War.

And just as patriotic Germans shouted down those who questioned Hitler’s aggression, self-styled “great Americans” consider it their patriotic duty to silence those who question our leaders’ actions.

One of the most telling similarities between Nazi Germany and modern America is a growing acceptance of the practice of marginalizing and dehumanizing a targeted group of people who are blamed for the ills of our nation.

In Germany it was the Jews who bore the brunt of this treatment as German society methodically marked them for destruction, first by innuendo, next by legal sanction and finally by the direct action of rounding them up and exterminating them.

Other groups including gypsies, communists, homosexuals and those with permanent disabilities were labeled as being a danger to the Fatherland and likewise targeted for elimination.

We must remember that the process by which the Final Solution was implemented was as gradual as it was deliberate.

Had Hitler started rounding up the Jews in the spring of 1933 the German people could have quickly discerned what he was doing and withheld their support.

By first carefully sowing seeds of distrust for the Jews and then implementing laws that forbade them to be a legitimate part of German society, the Nazis were able to convince enough Germans that Jews were somehow not really people at all.

It’s easy to picture a majority of German people as possessing a fanatical hatred for the Jews, but in reality it was primarily their calloused indifference that allowed the atrocities of the Third Reich to move forward virtually unopposed.

Too few Germans took the time to give serious thought to the official propaganda they’d been fed regarding the Jews and Hitler’s efforts to “defend” the Fatherland.

By the time some Germans realized what was being done in their names, it was too dangerous to speak out.

The current hysteria in America over Muslims in general is disturbingly familiar to those who have studied the methods used to dehumanize the so-called undesirables in 1930’s Germany.

The propaganda flows daily from various media sources who are vigorously trying to inflame public opinion against Muslims everywhere, not just those in America.

Thus far the propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Muslims are an existential threat to our nation has succeeded in rousing the right wing through its highly contrived tale of a so-called “Victory Mosque to be built at Ground Zero” of the 9/11 attacks.

Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

Never has information been so easy to come by, and yet the tried and true methods of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement are being employed at this moment.

********************

Right...it's good to know that people should not be marginalized by calling them Nazis. Calling Trump a Nazi is a Hitlerian fear tactic. Labeling someone a Communist is fear mongering. Referring to a group as Progressive is Hitleresque fear mongering. Marginalizing half of Americans by depicting them to be heartless capitalist pig Conservatives will lead us down the path of Hitler's Germany. Pointing out Christians as some tyrannical liberty destroying cult drives us into a hysteria which will wind up with concentration camps. Pointing out that Islam is not compatible with our Consitution, though, THAT is the really big and ultimate dehumanization. THAT is the "tried and true method of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement being employed at this moment." After all, as you say, "Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking."

Actually, using the internet it is easy to determine that Islam actually is not compatible with our Constitution. Just as Nazism and Communism and Socialism are also not compatible with our Constitution. But that's neither here nor there. We must not fear monger. Even though the Germans did not have the advantage of seeing how Nazism worked throughout the rest of the world, and even though we do have the advantage of seeing how Islam (as well as Nazism and Communism and Socialism) works throughout the rest of the world, we should not use that readily available information to say something that might "marginalize" someone.

But, in the meantime, let us keep calling Trump Hitler. Let us keep saying Conservatives and Christians are the real existential threat. Let us keep shouting them down and keep them from speaking at Universities.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But they would be paying even more federal taxes if they didn't have the higher deductions. What is being subsidized, is the high taxes of those who have to pay in liberal spending states. It makes it more palatable to taxpayers in states with the high taxes required to pay for programs if they can deduct high property taxes to defray the federal tax burden. It makes it a little more likely that tax payers in high tax states will complain about excessive state spending if they can't buffer that with federal deductions.

But, even though money is recouped back to the state because of federal deductions, those high tax states still manage to overspend and get into unsustainable debt.

"What is being subsidized, is the high taxes of those who have to pay in liberal spending states. "

Obviously true.

"those high tax states still manage to overspend and get into unsustainable debt"

Also true, especially here in CT, which now has unfunded debt to the tune of $35k for every human living in the state.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have been critical of Trump calling his opponents treasonous. Can I ask, is it only wrong when Trump does it? Corey Booker said those who called for the release of the Nunes memo were treasonous. Howard Dean said Senator Tom Cotton was acting treasonous for criticizing the Iran nuclear deal.

So is it only a problem for you, when Republicans do it? Is it too much to ask that we have one set of rules and standards, which apply equally to all of us?

Last time I checked they weren’t the POTUS at a rally .. again you see things the same because of the word not surprising
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Last time I checked they weren’t the POTUS at a rally .. again you see things the same because of the word not surprising
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in most of theses things...the democrats have set the very low standard...if you are hoping for or expecting Trump to raise the standard...you may be waiting in vain