Master Trump Thread

[Yatogami]

[REDACTED]

Oh good lord.

And that was the moment that any iota of credibility he had left went straight out he window into the dumpster

So, do you want the uncensored videos, or the news videos as to why they are? I'll give you time to do your own research.

Believe it or not, most of us can think for ourselves; we don't need your videos.

Really now? Then prove me wrong? You cannot win a debate by going "You are wrong!" then refuse to talk about it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/tim-constantine-black-lives-matter-terrorist-group/

http://www.infowars.com/inspiration-behind-black-lives-matter-is-on-the-fbis-most-wanted-terrorists-list/

It is also tied into Black Nationalist groups (The black version of the KKK)

[FaerieFate]

Conversation is okay. In fact, it is encouraged. A discussion is the exchanging of ideas, which I intend every thread in this board to be. However, any content in this board that is inflammatory will not be tolerated, and I politely ask that you consider what you write before you post it. Philosophy, Politics, and Science is intended to be the exchanging of ideas. If you have controversial opinions or wish for a heated discussion, please move it to Hotbox.

Faeriefate, Philosophy, Politics, and Science moderator

[Joe the Stoic]

Look, I like Trump enough as a celebrity. I credit him with creating the first actually good reality show and proving that reality shows don't all have to be about morons thrown into silly situations in front of a camera. He's got the right personality for that stuff.

But he does not have the right personality to be in the White House. An unscrupulous self-promoter like him has no business running this country. He does not even seem to know how to do anything. He comes up with confident, gut responses at the podium but has no substance. He has no plan for fixing our democracy. At best, he says he is going to come in and use his deal-making prowess to force hands and accomplish some goals (like building a wall or bombing ISIS). As soon as he leaves office, whether it's four or eight years later, we are stuck with the same system. It's great that he's self-funded, but what is he going to do about campaign-finance reform? How can he ignore the raw science that tells us a single-payer health system is better than a privatized one? How can he ignore the even rawer science that says climate change is real and just leave the planet even nearer to disaster?

I mean, even if he could talk his way into success, where is the long-term strategy? Bernie proposes a political revolution pushed by millions of people that will go into the presidency and beyond. Trump only advocates Trump. You don't lead a nation around one man. Entire empires have been erased due to the loss of one singularly important man. Trump at his best will simply never be enough.

[binary suns]

Hitler was evil. Trump is just an idiot, a bad jokester, or both. I wouldn't compare them.

yeah basically this. Trump is not evil, mislead perhas. But he has earnestly healthy intentions.

I'm gonna be honest... despite disliking a lot of Trump's style in debate and the oppinions he expresses, there's a chance by the end of this I'll vote for him.... that is, depending on whether or not his goals of prioritizing debt reduction and reworking the foreign trade policies over his bull crap like fighting mexican immigration.

[sonofzeal]

...he has earnestly healthy intentions.

....really? That's the complete opposite takeaway that I had. Every ounce of my being tells me that he has absolutely no concern whatsoever for the common good, only his own. His sole purpose is to use his presidential campaign and, he hopes, the presidency itself, to help build his personal empire. Some of what he says is honestly excellent, I'm totally willing to grant that, but he says it for the same reason he says he'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it - they're things to say to build up his not-so-little army, rather than things he has any ability or inclination to actually do.

My overall take on him can be seen back in this post. I recommend checking out some of those links I included.

[Tarfeather]

Hitler had earnest, good intentions. This should be proof enough that intentions don't count for much.

[Goonie]

I don't think he's a reincarnation. Depending on the views of reincarnation, I'm pretty certain Hitler will be in various levels of hell to learn from his past mistakes for many lifetimes.

It does appear that Gary Johnson is starting to gain some traction without as much media coverage as the other main candidates. I think, one of the greater concerns fast approaching, is the 12th amendment. If no candidate receives majority of Electoral votes then it goes to Congress to decide.

[Guest]

Hitler had earnest, good intentions. This should be proof enough that intentions don't count for much.

Earnest - yes, definitely.

But calling them "good" relies on the fact that morality/ethics lie in the eye of the beholder. I have no doubt that he honestly saw his own intentions as the good and neccessary thing to do to save Germany and the "Aryan race" from threats he imagined to be real. Except that, you know, the threats weren't real - the racial theory and the "big Jewish world conspiracy" were humbug, no matter how strongly he and his pals believe din them.

(Which is probably how you used that word here, anyway... but I think this needs to get pointed out explicitly.)

[Sally]

Hitler had earnest, good intentions. This should be proof enough that intentions don't count for much.

One of Hitler's intentions was almost carried out: the elimination of Jews from the world. By the end of the war, almost all of Europe's Jews were dead. If he'd let his generals carry out the war instead of trying to direct it himself, the Nazis would have won.

[Guest]

If he'd let his generals carry out the war instead of trying to direct it himself, the Nazis would have won.

Against England, yes. Hitler's decision against his generals' council most likely saved England's bacon in Dunkirk.

Against Russia? One heck of a lot less likely. The Nazis could possibly have taken Moscow with a bit better timing (only a complete idiot invades Russia in autumn!); but I can't imagine any realistic scenario in which Stalin wouldn't have come up ahead in the end... especially with the US coming in from the other front, too (which was due to yet another idiocy of Hitler's - declaring war on the sleeping giant US because "the Japanese are a noble warrior race, we must ally with them against the American degenerates". *facepalm* )

[sonofzeal]

If he'd let his generals carry out the war instead of trying to direct it himself, the Nazis would have won.

Against England, yes. Hitler's decision against his generals' council most likely saved England's bacon in Dunkirk.

Against Russia? One heck of a lot less likely. The Nazis could possibly have taken Moscow with a bit better timing (only a complete idiot invades Russia in autumn!); but I can't imagine any realistic scenario in which Stalin wouldn't have come up ahead in the end... especially with the US coming in from the other front, too (which was due to yet another idiocy of Hitler's - declaring war on the sleeping giant US because "the Japanese are a noble warrior race, we must ally with them against the American degenerates". *facepalm* )

Contrariwise, I can't imagine a scenario where Adolf captures Britain early and still loses the war. Taking Russia's one thing, but staving them off is a whole other ballgame. Without the resource sink that Britain became (not to mention factory loss in Britain-based bombing raids), Hitler could have afforded to lose those forces in the failed invasion of Russia and still hold onto North Africa and his eastern borders a lot more effectively. For all the theoretical power of the USA, the atmosphere at the time was heavily isolationist and support for the war effort in Europe was mixed (America being significantly German). A gloomier prognosis and sterner opposition may have gone a long way towards getting them to focus on Japan and not get so involved in Europe in the first place.

[Sally]

For all the theoretical power of the USA, the atmosphere at the time was heavily isolationist and support for the war effort in Europe was mixed (America being significantly German). A gloomier prognosis and sterner opposition may have gone a long way towards getting them to focus on Japan and not get so involved in Europe in the first place.

America wasn't significantly German but it was significantly isolationist, and also anti-Semitic. Lindbergh did everything he could to prevent involvement in the European war and used Ford's anti-Semitic literature to help turn the citizenry against the war he and others considered to be caused by the Jews. Roosevelt was worried about helping Jews escape to America because they would cause stress on housing and employment. If Pearl Harbor hadn't happened, we would not have entered the war. Perhaps that was key to the Nazis eventually losing.

Hitler apparently didn't read about Napoleon's difficulties in wintertime Russia. He also didn't realize that Stalin was willing to have every young male in Russia die in defense of the country.

[Tarfeather]

But calling them "good" relies on the fact that morality/ethics lie in the eye of the beholder.

If you look at all the shit happening, *legally*, in this world, I would either have to conclude that morality does indeed lie in the eye of the beholder, or that 99.99% of humans are immoral beyond comprehension.

[just an owl]

Joe, I want to agree but... You think reality TV is a good idea??? That was what caused the downfall of America! :p

But yeah, the idea that he relates to the "common man" [which is total BS, he was born into wealth and has very little in common with your average person] is not a good quality I'd want in a president, I want someone who knows what they're doing and I really don't think he does.

[ThaHoward]

Well to be fair Roosevelt pressed on early on to help the allies, and verbally supported them when Germany invaded Poland and would later get through congress to grant support to USSR and the Allies. So it was little doubt who he supported, as it was little doubt they did not wish USSR to dominate Europe.

[Guest]

Well to be fair Roosevelt pressed on early on to help the allies, and verbally supported them when Germany invaded Poland and would later get through congress to grant support to USSR and the Allies. So it was little doubt who he supported, as it was little doubt they did not wish USSR to dominate Europe.

Would he have declared war on Nazi Germany first, though, if Hitler had done the smart thing (for once...) and not sided with Japan after Pearl Harbor? I could easily see public opinion in the US go against that... "Dude, we're kinda busy right now in the Pacific theater. Could we just not invade Germany, too?"

[Joe the Stoic]

The successes of Nazi Germany in the first half of the war can very much be credited to Hitler. He made a lot of critical decisions, and he actually had quite a bit of knowledge of military strategy, gained during his own time in the army of the German Empire. His embrace of armored bewegungskrieg and insistence on its use in Fall Gelb were largely responsible for the rapid and almost bloodless conquest of France, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg. What happened afterward, many historians feel, is that after his successful rise to power in German politics and his almost-overnight seizure of the Continent, he truly began to believe that he and his Aryan armies were invulnerable, when in fact these successes were all due to careful planning. This caused Hitler to become careless, and carelessness was not something Germany could afford because it was pretty much the only reliable, major power in the Axis, other than Japan (which was a hemisphere away). It was up against Britain and Russia and later America. It did not have the resources to fight a protracted war, and so they needed to win quickly, which they might have done if not for their carelessness.

[Joe the Stoic]

Joe, I want to agree but... You think reality TV is a good idea??? That was what caused the downfall of America! :P

But yeah, the idea that he relates to the "common man" [which is total BS, he was born into wealth and has very little in common with your average person] is not a good quality I'd want in a president, I want someone who knows what they're doing and I really don't think he does.

Some reality TV is a good idea. Let's face it, repetitive fiction can get boring after a while. Is Fear Factor or American Idol, where much of the appeal is in people making fools of themselves, the best that reality TV has to offer? No, but The Apprentice, Storage Wars, Man vs. Food—these are all rather good shows.

[Skycaptain]

Yay to storage wars,

[Joe the Stoic]

Lol that is the most amusing. Even then Obama was a socialist and making a government takeover with his healthcare program. And the left isn't much better, they blame the Republicans on the healthcare compromise. In fact the Democrats had majority in both chambers, and the compromise were since the house of representatives and the Senate couldnt agree.

The Senate couldn't agree because Ted Kennedy died. The Governor of Massachusetts replaced him with a Republican. This cost the Democrats their supermajority in the Senate, which meant that they could no longer pass a vote of cloture to stop a Republican filibuster, which the Republicans subsequently exploited. The Republicans indeed made Obamacare the flawed program that it is.

[ThaHoward]

Yes but that happened before the Baseball comment. After that they knew they would lose (i.e not even getting the heavy moderated Senate version) so they pulled shit off to only include 51 votes. Still it was disagreements internally in both chambers and between them again that formed the reform not the Republicans they compromised with- which is the myth.

[iff]

If he'd let his generals carry out the war instead of trying to direct it himself, the Nazis would have won.

Against England, yes. Hitler's decision against his generals' council most likely saved England's bacon in Dunkirk.

Against Russia? One heck of a lot less likely. The Nazis could possibly have taken Moscow with a bit better timing (only a complete idiot invades Russia in autumn!); but I can't imagine any realistic scenario in which Stalin wouldn't have come up ahead in the end... especially with the US coming in from the other front, too (which was due to yet another idiocy of Hitler's - declaring war on the sleeping giant US because "the Japanese are a noble warrior race, we must ally with them against the American degenerates". *facepalm* )

according to the book "behind closed doors" by laurence rees, one of the things was that after the early successes of hitler and germany in world war II, hitler increased his involvement in the war strategy and planning.

On the other hand, Stalin had decreased his part in the war decision making processes.

If he'd let his generals carry out the war instead of trying to direct it himself, the Nazis would have won.

Against England, yes. Hitler's decision against his generals' council most likely saved England's bacon in Dunkirk.

Against Russia? One heck of a lot less likely. The Nazis could possibly have taken Moscow with a bit better timing (only a complete idiot invades Russia in autumn!); but I can't imagine any realistic scenario in which Stalin wouldn't have come up ahead in the end... especially with the US coming in from the other front, too (which was due to yet another idiocy of Hitler's - declaring war on the sleeping giant US because "the Japanese are a noble warrior race, we must ally with them against the American degenerates". *facepalm* )

Contrariwise, I can't imagine a scenario where Adolf captures Britain early and still loses the war. Taking Russia's one thing, but staving them off is a whole other ballgame. Without the resource sink that Britain became (not to mention factory loss in Britain-based bombing raids), Hitler could have afforded to lose those forces in the failed invasion of Russia and still hold onto North Africa and his eastern borders a lot more effectively. For all the theoretical power of the USA, the atmosphere at the time was heavily isolationist and support for the war effort in Europe was mixed (America being significantly German). A gloomier prognosis and sterner opposition may have gone a long way towards getting them to focus on Japan and not get so involved in Europe in the first place.

in the novel "dominion" by c.j. sansom which imagines a britain that surrendered to the nazi's and have a puppet government in place, sansom in his background imagines a germany stuck in stalemate against the russia's, gains in the summer, loses in the winter.

when it came to north africa and greece/balkans, i think the biggest impediment that germany had was the italy forces. some historical counts i have read that italy''s involvement in greece nearly saw that the greeks looked on the verge of counterattacking against italy but for the german forces coming to aid italian efforts

[Joe the Stoic]

Yes but that happened before the Baseball comment. After that they knew they would lose (i.e not even getting the heavy moderated Senate version) so they pulled shit off to only include 51 votes. Still it was disagreements internally in both chambers and between them again that formed the reform not the Republicans they compromised with- which is the myth.

None of that changes the fact that Kennedy's successor promised to be the 41st vote needed to deny cloture and give the GOP filibuster power, which the Republicans exploited until a few were happy with the end result. With that, the Democrats had to give many concessions to the Republicans. The loss of the public option was one of those things.

Is it true that many blue dog Democrats were less than helpful and perhaps more concerned about Big Pharma? Absolutely, especially after Ted died, but the Republicans had a major role in the faults of Obamacare, which they have since blamed on Obama as though they are innocent. To absolve the GOP is just careless.

[ThaHoward]

The successes of Nazi Germany in the first half of the war can very much be credited to Hitler. He made a lot of critical decisions, and he actually had quite a bit of knowledge of military strategy, gained during his own time in the army of the German Empire. His embrace of armored bewegungskrieg and insistence on its use in Fall Gelb were largely responsible for the rapid and almost bloodless conquest of France, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg. What happened afterward, many historians feel, is that after his successful rise to power in German politics and his almost-overnight seizure of the Continent, he truly began to believe that he and his Aryan armies were invulnerable, when in fact these successes were all due to careful planning. This caused Hitler to become careless, and carelessness was not something Germany could afford because it was pretty much the only reliable, major power in the Axis, other than Japan (which was a hemisphere away). It was up against Britain and Russia and later America. It did not have the resources to fight a protracted war, and so they needed to win quickly, which they might have done if not for their carelessness.

Being a corporal don't give you steategic knowledge. That being said, Hitler and the top commanders were against the mobile war and wanted tanks to support their infantry. It was lower ranked Generals like Guderian who defied orders and improvised and "invented" blitzkrieg.

[ThaHoward]

The successes of Nazi Germany in the first half of the war can very much be credited to Hitler. He made a lot of critical decisions, and he actually had quite a bit of knowledge of military strategy, gained during his own time in the army of the German Empire. His embrace of armored bewegungskrieg and insistence on its use in Fall Gelb were largely responsible for the rapid and almost bloodless conquest of France, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg. What happened afterward, many historians feel, is that after his successful rise to power in German politics and his almost-overnight seizure of the Continent, he truly began to believe that he and his Aryan armies were invulnerable, when in fact these successes were all due to careful planning. This caused Hitler to become careless, and carelessness was not something Germany could afford because it was pretty much the only reliable, major power in the Axis, other than Japan (which was a hemisphere away). It was up against Britain and Russia and later America. It did not have the resources to fight a protracted war, and so they needed to win quickly, which they might have done if not for their carelessness.

Being a corporal don't give you steategic knowledge. That being said, Hitler and the top commanders were against the mobile war and wanted tanks to support their infantry. It was lower ranked Generals like Guderian who defied orders and improvised and "invented" blitzkrieg.

[thylacine]

I have been thinking about this and realize how important the "Aryan race" was to Adolf, if he was to reincarnate, he'd want to come back as a German… and Trump's last name is German… Hitler would want to come back as a blond Aryan, wouldn't he?

[Guest]

I have been thinking about this and realize how important the "Aryan race" was to Adolf, if he was to reincarnate, he'd want to come back as a German… and Trump's last name is German… Hitler would want to come back as a blond Aryan, wouldn't he?

Does any belief system that incorporates reincarnation hold that you can choose what you come back as? Usually, they include a belief that this gets decided for you (by karma, god(s), etc.).

[ChillaKilla]

Aaaand Kim Jongun just endorsed Donald Trump

[Joe the Stoic]

Being a corporal don't give you steategic knowledge. That being said, Hitler and the top commanders were against the mobile war and wanted tanks to support their infantry. It was lower ranked Generals like Guderian who defied orders and improvised and "invented" blitzkrieg.

Ordinarily, no, but he worked with many high-ranking generals and was exposed to many of the plans. He learned a lot of strategy through that. His was an irregular education, not something he gained at an academy per se.

And I'm not saying Hitler's generals didn't act on their own or that Hitler invented blitzkrieg. Hell, the Nazi generals didn't either. Bewegungskrieg and autonomous leadership were concepts that dated back to Prussian tradition (Frederick the Great, Carl von Clausewitz). I am just saying that Hitler played his part in the initial successes of Germany.

[ThaHoward]

Not really. As I said the great successes of Poland and France Hitler and the top brass wanted traditional warfare. If they had followed that they would have gotten into a deadlock. It was later when Hitler took command and wanted a blitkrieg official doctrine that he f*cked it up. He however understood it was a war about resources and not the traditional of racing to the capital. Still the successes if the German warfare relied on the lower ranked Generals, and when Hitler took control he ruined many things - like instead if totally crippling RAF he focused on terrorbombing as a form of revenge.