Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Why has no other President ever painted the media as fake news, or called them the enemy of the people?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (14980points) 1 month ago

No Democrat, or Republican.
Just Trump and a lot of his loyal base believe him.
For someone so honest, and for the people, he sure seems scared of any news except Fox.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

186 Answers

kritiper's avatar

No other president has been a chump like Trump.

ScienceChick's avatar

No other US President, maybe. But one ‘Chancellor’ https://www.usnews.com/news/at-the-edge/articles/2017-10-26/trump-propaganda-and-the-destruction-of-the-free-press Franco of Spain did https://prezi.com/7mtbme-ci-sh/propaganda-censorship-during-the-franco-era-1939-1973-r/ Soviet Russia and now Fascist Russia does. And Italian dictator, Mussolini https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/mussolini-press (all extreme examples, but a cautionary tale.)

Jeruba's avatar

It’s what he thinks he has to do to protect himself. To protect himself and grab all he can get, he does whatever he thinks he has to, and it doesn’t matter who else gets hurt. Even mobsters have better ethical standards. For one thing, they believe in loyalty.

We have never, ever had such a vile, cynical, dishonorable person in the White House. He didn’t run for president. He ran for power. And he picked the story he thought would get the greatest number of the most malleable people to support him. Got that part right.

The other thing he got right, aside from figuring out what place in the world would let him get his hands on the most money, was the calculated risk that it would take Americans some time before they began to comprehend exactly what they were seeing. And it did. Other nations caught on before most of us really got it. Whatever else happens, we have been humbled, possibly even beyond what we deserved.

 
To whom it may concern: Vitriol is corrosive acid. It does not mean “something I disagree with” or even “something I disagree with expressed in strong language.”

Patty_Melt's avatar

Because times are a changing.
In the past, Presidents, and hopefuls bought their own newspapers, one already with established readership, so they could ensure people read what that individual wanted them to.

Lincoln bought multiple newspapers.

There are innumerable news outlets these days, and buying one or two doesn’t make sense any more.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

To be fair CNN has drifted off into the fringe left and has lost any credibility just like FOX news has. I’m not even sure where to go for unbiased news these days.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, the press certainly can be a formidable enemy for any politician,but especially crooked ones. That’s why the founding fathers wrote Free Speech right into the constitution.

@ARE_you_kidding_me, NPR, ABC, BBC, Algazere…here’s a pretty useful graphic

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I like Canadian CBC, also I like BBC, and PBS.
I rather dislike any news outlet that leans right or left, tell both sides of the damn story.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think all other presidents genuinely wanted to put the needs of the people first, and in a way they appreciated the media for keeping them on the level (mostly.)
But trump…..his needs are #1. The people are number….45 on his narcissistic list.

Might check the graph I posted for @ARE_you_kidding_me. I agree. I’m not going to automatically believe something just because it’s what I want to hear.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

That graphic was almost true ten years ago.

gorillapaws's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me ”...CNN has drifted off into the fringe left…”

I really don’t think you have a rational perspective of where “left” and “right” are. For example, Hillary Clinton was moderate-right on many issues. Anything left of her is “center” and anything left of center (e.g. Bernie, AOC) is moderate-left and the people significantly more left of them are your “fringe leftists” (e.g. Stalin, Mao, etc.). Are you really saying that CNN is significantly further left of Bernie Sanders and AOC?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Ok, give me a for example @ARE_you_kidding_me. Which news media shows pretty center on the graph but has shown to be wildly left or right?

MollyMcGuire's avatar

I’ve been calling them that for many years. I think Trump got it from me.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It depends on the news outlet. NPR and BBC can be trusted. National Enquirer can not.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

_CNN has drifted off into the fringe left _

What fringe left “fake news” is do you think CNN is reporting? Be specific.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes they have been drifting there and the graph shows it. When I saw their position I was disappointed and no longer use them as a credible news source.

gorillapaws's avatar

Here’s another way to look at it: When was the last time any major American media organization aired anyone from the actual extreme left, as in someone that would argue that Bernie is way to far to the right? Can anyone think of a single instance the fringe left has ever had that perspective represented honestly in the mainstream media? Contrast this with the non-stop point of view from the extreme-right.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Nixon was the last president to attack the press as vehemently as Trump. Not coincidentally, they are the two most corrupt presidents in the past 50 years.

Nixon successfully began the process where major outlets were made afraid to report objectively, lest they suffer the howling from aggrieved conservatives over “liberal” bias.

Washinton Post – October 16, 2017 – When it comes to harassing the media, Trump is no Nixon – [In 1969 the Nixon] administration circulated memorandums outlining ways to attack the networks by using the FCC, the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department for political ends, including challenging licenses of individual stations…

…[Vice President Agnew] calling the executives and reporters in charge of the editorial decisions a “tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one.”

If you’re interested in an in-depth read
The New Yorker – October 1, 1973 – The Presidency and the Press

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Take a look at all the “opinion” columns on CNN, they speak for themselves and for their left-oriented audience pandering.

ragingloli's avatar

One of the basics of any dictatorship. Control the narrative, demonise those who refuse to tow the line.

rojo's avatar

Wow @ScienceChick he is in such grand company.

@SQUEEKY2 and therein lies the problem. There are not two sides to the story, there is the story. The sides come from the spin. Just tell the story and tell it like it is. If Trump (or any politician for that matter) lies, say he lied, not that he mislead or some other euphemism.

I thought your graphic was pretty close to accurate @Dutchess_III and FWIW and it was dated 2018.

And finally, I think it is the role of the press to take an aggressive stance toward the other three branches of government and demand they tell the truth. Shine light into the darkness and the roaches run for cover.

seawulf575's avatar

Because the media has been getting more and more biased. Think about it. For the last 8 years, they were allowed to spew the liberal crap that passes as news and they were praised by the POTUS and the Dems. Before that, we had Bush II and while there was a bias, it was not as pronounced. Back to Clinton and they were sort of middlin’. They enjoyed reporting on the scandal that was Bill Clinton, but they really didn’t try to dig deep. Before that? They were gradually swaying to the left. Back in the days of Nixon, they were actually full blown investigative journalists. That is what they are supposed to be. Now, they spew spin and opinion and call it news. I agree with @rojo…if the media actually did their jobs, they would have tons of news to report on. But they don’t.

notnotnotnot's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me: ”...fringe left…”

Think about what you are saying. Do you really believe that a multi-billion dollar subsidiary of an even larger corporation would push an ideology that threatens their existence? Or when you say “left” or “fringe left”, do you really mean to say “liberal”? CNN is very problematic, and is really a cheerleader for American exceptionalism, capitalism, and imperialism. It offers nothing even resembling “left” perspective.

ucme's avatar

Because all the others were lying, greasy, scumbucket politicians who used the media to further their selfish cause. Trump the businessman calls it as it is, you should know that by now.
Oh & i’m not a Trump fan & have no US political allegiance, just peeling away bias to reveal simple truths.

flutherother's avatar

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any president who calls the press “the enemy of the people” doesn’t deserve to be in office. This isn’t criticism of the press, or an accusation of bias or pointing out factual errors, it is an attack on press freedom itself. It is an attempt to shut down the institutions of democracy and it is how dictatorships begin.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@notnotnotnot They’re capitalizing on your existence and selling a narrative that does not threaten them but diverts your attention to social issues and away from economic ones. This is not rocket science.

Another note, when “the press” is not reporting news but spreading sensationalism, conspiracy theories cough-info wars cough and attempting to influence public opinion on political matters cough cnn/fox cough we have a delicate problem to address.

notnotnotnot's avatar

^ You realize that the left doesn’t consume corporate media (other than for media analysis), right? We’re not their target audience, as we’re completely left out of the conversation. And your assessment that they ignore economics is accurate. So, why then did you claim that CNN has gone “fringe left”, since left/right is generally understood to be the economic axis when discussing political thought?

Look, you’re not going to find me defending corporate media (a propaganda system). But I’m not going to let “CNN=fringe left” nonsense go unchallenged. CNN is a problem. It’s a very ideological institution, that is fairly consistent with the rest of corporate media. It limits ideological discussion and thought to a very narrow window, that results in people claiming that corporate propaganda is somehow anti-corporate.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Take a look at all the “opinion” columns on CNN

Opinion pieces aren’t presented as news. You’re missing basic news-reading/watching literacy if your aren’t aware of the difference.

And you still haven’t been able to name one specific item that makes you think CNN is far-left “fake news”.

If you can’t talk specifics, you’re just ranting.

LadyMarissa's avatar

IF you watch him close enough, the louder he claims “fake news”, it’s HIS spin that is FAKE!!! Most politicians accept the fact that they just got busted & they deal with the fallout & hope it fades away.

Even when NOBODY is accusing him of anything, he makes up something & calls it “fake news” because he “NEEDS” the attention!!!

JLeslie's avatar

Etiquette.

Also, saying something against the free press is one of the most unAmerican things someone can say. Most people know that.

Recently, Trump clarified saying the fake news is the enemy of the people. If you stop for a moment, forget that Trump says so much crap it is unbelievable, he does make a point if you buy his clarification. Fake news would be the equivalent to propaganda, and that is a manipulative tool that can be terrifying and destructive. The problem is, Trump uses it against news outlets even when the news outlet is telling the truth! That makes him the propaganda.

LadyMarissa's avatar

The man thrives on turmoil & attention; & IF it’s not readily available, he WILL create it!!!

rojo's avatar

No real President has had the need to justify such contempt for the people, policies and press as this pretend one has.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

This is for @seawulf575 and @MollyMcGuire what news outlet do you trust these days?

johnpowell's avatar

It is like when I asked my roommate who was a heroin addict where my tv went.

rojo's avatar

Probably shitty of me to ask but does anyone else think Trump is the enema of the people?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Again I think that we might be fortunate in having Trump as our version of would be dictator. And I agree with his fans that the man is nobody’s Adolf Hitler. Just imagine where we might be were we under the thumb of a competent individual with the same agenda. As it is, there are too many negatives stacking up against the perpetual clown show for it to persist. Between Mueller’s upcoming revelations, the forecast catastrophe of the Fall elections, and the nonstop scandalous shakeout of upper echelon criminals and bunglers in the fool’s regime, the odds don’t look good. But while we on the ground, both left and right bicker violently, we are only distracted from the fact that the plutocrats never had it so good as the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world continues to accelerate in front of us. And that theft has no greater ally nor facilitator than Donald J Trump.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Not many of them. They all have bias to some degree. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo all lean way left and present stories that way. Fox leans right and presents news that way. I typically get a story from each and try to figure out the truth.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@notnotnot your idea of the far left is apparently only anti-corporate but there is a whole world of people on the left who are left mainly because of social issues. I lean left on social issues but CNN is much further left. @Call_me_Jay opinion articles while not “news” reflect the agenda being pushed by the news outlet. It’s a dead giveaway.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Just asking for an example of how they are “far” left @ARE_you_kidding_me. They have been drifting left so I quit using them to get my news, but I have yet to see anything that is “far” left.

Soubresaut's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me—what about any of the news outlets in the center-top green rectangle? The Hill and the The Wall Street Journal both lean slightly conservative while remaining fact-reporting institutions. And then you have Reuters, Bloomberg, CBS, The Christian Science Monitor, and Time, which are on the right side of neutral. Just below all of those are some neutral and conservative-of-center “complex analysis” media that sit at the top of the “fair interpretations of the news” rectangle. The Fiscal Times and the Economist are economically focused by their names, which might fill the hole in economic coverage I believe you said you feel from other sources. I haven’t heard much of the National Review, The Weekly Standard, or reason-dot-com, maybe you have, but you might feel they better match your perspective on some things? Honestly trying to help, hope I am. Don’t want you to feel like you don’t have places for news.

The infographic may place CNN less liberal than you feel it is, but it does place CNN at the border of “opinion; fair persuasion” and “selective or incomplete story; unfair persuasion” rather than “original fact reporting” (or any of the other categories between). I would imagine it’s the opinion, selectivity, and [unfair] persuasion aspects that bother you about CNN. (I would also note that CNN is placed between the yellow and orange rectangles, which puts it half on “unfair interpretations of the news.” You may put it more squarely into orange. At the very least, though, the graphic does seem to express your issues with CNN, if not as strongly as you would.)

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think the difference between Trump and Nixon, is that Nixon really had the best interests of America at heart. I do think he was actually a good president. He just fucked up in his need to WIN, to be #1. And if it wasn’t for the press we might not have ever known.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me You still won’t name any specifics. Just yelling at the clouds.

And opinion pieces don’t mean an agenda is being pushed on the news side. The Wall Street Journal has an extreme right-wing editorial page, and normal straight reporting in the news.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Thanks for getting back @seawulf575 .

rojo's avatar

You know, we battle each other over who does what to whom but we never seem to address the real problem, the excess of money in politics and its detrimental effect upon the system. It does not matter who or what is the figurehead, it is the moneyed elite that play, and own, both sides that are the problem.

What we have is not Democrat vs Republican anymore. What we have is one group of rich people vs another group of rich people vying to game the system in their own favor.

That is why Trump was not and is not a viable solution to Clinton. He did not drain the swamp, he removed one set of slime balls and replaced them with another.

Until we address and stop the flow of the obscene amounts of cash that go to our politicians in many varied forms but all of which can be called legalized bribery we will not see substantial change.

Until people realize that what is happening is not Republican/Democrat or Progressive/Conservative but is actually class warfare, (and unfortunately one side does not or will not accept that this is what it really is), then we cannot address the problems we all (well, all of us who cannot afford our own politician) face. The real enemy has used social differences to have us fighting between ourselves instead of confronting them. It is time to stop taking their bait and realize that we peons are more alike than different and the biggest differences actually lie between the peons and the lords regardless of which lord is nominally “in charge”..

SQUEEKY2's avatar

SUPER EXCELLENT ANSWER @rojo !!!!!!!!!!< notice all the exclamation marks? that is to say I totally agree, and drive the punctuation police crazy.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Dutchess III I don’t think we have ever had a President who did not sincerely believe that his agenda was in the best interests of the country. This includes Trump who is too shallow to even understand any argument against his being crowned king of America. For Trump, the fact that he is willing to serve as king while being denied the title is proof of his devotion to his country. And if you don’t think that crown matters to a man distinguished for a lifetime of slapping his name on gaudy shit, you haven’t been paying attention to “the stable genius”.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

That big money has divided the people just the way they wanted to, and the people fall for it every time.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 Just wondering you pointed news stations you thought leaned way left,and I give you credit you pointed out fox that leans right,just leans right??
I think Fox leans Waaaayy right.
To a point they are no longer considered a news station ,and more of a propaganda show,and have been proven so on more than one time.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 The same can be said about the others. They allr lean Waaaayy left. That’s the point. There are few very in the middle ground these days.

ragingloli's avatar

You can say that Huffington Post leans way left. Fox “news” is far right. The rest are squarely in the middle.

JLeslie's avatar

You can’t say MSNBC is squarely in the middle.

ragingloli's avatar

Sure I can.

LadyMarissa's avatar

I don’t trust ANY of them; so, I listen to ALL of them & decide for myself what is actually happening!!! I’ve added the BBC & Al Jazeera to my lineup mainly because neither of them seem to have the full fledged love/hatred for Trump that the US press puts forth.

I’ve NEVER liked Trump the person & I don’t want to just hear how terrible he is IF he actually does something good. On the other side, I don’t want to just hear how perfect he is when he’s tearing the world apart!!!

Doing things my way does take some time; but, I do feel I have a more balanced feel for what is happening doing it this way!!!

seawulf575's avatar

Sorry, @ragingloli, but when a news agency edits video to change the content just so it can support a different ideology, it is no longer a news agency…it is a propaganda outlet. MSNBC and CNN have both been caught doing this. Think how great it would be if our “news agencies” actually reported on the news…gave all the pros and cons of situations without slant. Think how different our government would be if “reporters” actually dug for stories and exposed corruption instead of trying misdirection to cover it up. I agree with @LadyMarissa in that BBC and Al Jazeera seem to be a bit more honest in their reporting that US outlets. That statement alone ought to be scary to US citizens.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

it is a propaganda outlet. MSNBC and CNN have both been caught doing this.

But you can’t cite a single example.

ScienceChick's avatar

Just MSNBC and CNN? Not Fox? Hmmmmm….

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick Fox has its own biases and yes, they have altered video as well. Not a surprise. As I have mentioned, they are skewed to the right. But I was following on with @ragingloli claiming that MSNBC was squarely in the middle. They aren’t. That is why I mentioned them. He also claimed that the others I mentioned were also squarely in the middle except for Huffington Post and Fox. So that is what I was addressing, not trying to defend Fox, who I have already claimed to be skewed right. You can try painting me any way you like, but you really make yourself look foolish to anyone with reading comprehension.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

@seawulf575

Nothing you linked there is seriously flawed coverage. Except for #5 with Fox News pushing a fake story. That’s pretty bad.

1) 6 years ago Mitt Romney was shown using a touch screen. They did not include his previous minutes talking about government bureaucracy

2) 6 years ago a caption of a Romney/Ryan rally video said the “Romney Ryan” instead of “Romney

3) Fox News takes as gospel claims from “Blue Lives Matters” that a video was edited. Fox News makes no effort to confirm if that’s true or not.

4) CNN didn’t air a rant from a profanity-riddled rant from an angry woman whose brother was killed

5) Fox News pushed a bogus story and later issued corrections.
Parkland shooting survivor’s family shops doctored emails with CNN to media outlets

6) CNN showed a video of Trump feeding fish with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Conservatives are for some reason enraged by this.

7) MSNBC showed a clip of hecklers disrespecting the father of a kid murdered at Sandy Hook. There was a short pause edited out. There is a wipe on the screen, indicating time has passed. The hecklers were real. Their words were not altered.

8) MSNBC made an error and retracted it the same day.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 You pointed that out,and just stated that Fox leans right.
I will agree with ya on MSNBC leaning left.
You pointed out some leaned WAY left, and Fox leans right,all I wanted to point out was that FOX has definitely earned a WAY with their leaning as well.
Our Canadian News doesn’t seem as bias as your Yankee news channels, or at least I am not picking it up from them doing it.

LadyMarissa's avatar

@seawulf575 It scares the hell out of me!!! Still, it is a welcomed break from the constant barrage of inaccurate info from both sides that we get here. Maybe it’s because they have NO vested interest in what goes on here!!!

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 It hits me as a curiosity with Canadian news. It might be that it is totally honest and doing a good job. But could it also be that it is so biased and controlled that you only get to hear one side? If all you hear is one side, you could believe it is true when in fact it is biased. Again…not saying it is or isn’t….just a curiosity.

seawulf575's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay your response shows how brainwashed you are. If you are shown a video that has been altered to change the message or the implications and you are not outraged, you are a fool. And by your answers, you are a fool. The one I particularly found as proof is your #7. CNN showed a video of Mr. Heslin testifying to congress about his feelings on gun control following Sandy Hook. In the CNN edited version, the gentleman is speaking and makes a comment/question about why anyone would need an assault style weapon. The CNN version appeared to have people start shouting things at him about the 2nd amendment. The TRUE version showed he actually wanted an answer, was waiting for one and when everyone was being respectful, he stated he didn’t think there was a reason. That is when people realized for certain he was looking for an answer and started tossing out reasons. CNN then proceeded to air their doctored video with a story about how rude hecklers interrupted a grieving father. They weren’t hecklers at all. They weren’t interrupting him. They were responding to his question. But when you alter the video, you can make it look any way you like. And THAT is how propaganda works. But as I stated previously, you wouldn’t believe any citations nor admit I was right. You are too foolish.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

your response shows how brainwashed you are

OK, Sparky. Now tell us about the Clinton body count again. And the massive secret constitutional violations Obama made, that you know all about, but the Republicans in Congress didn’t notice.

You should look around for a Media Literacy class. Maybe a local community college has one. It would really help with your difficulties in sorting credible sources from the ones that are designed to appeal to your prejudices and make you angry.

ScienceChick's avatar

I suggest a class in logic and critical thinking.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It’s kind of tricky, really. If they air the video of Obama and his heartfelt speech to the parents and survivors of Newton, and people sympathize and praise his speech, they’re accused of leaning left, when all they did was air the speech.
If they post a video of trump babbling inherently, they’re STILL leaning left, because trump’s own word were not favorable.

It reminds me of a SNL skit…I think it was immediately after the election. Alec Baldwin as trump (says something like) “The media is my enemy. They’re trying to make me look bad because they post everything I do, and everything I say.”

ScienceChick's avatar

So, leaning Left, means you are human and sympathetic? Is that the worst thing to be accused of?

stanleybmanly's avatar

We may not come to any agreement on the validity of this or that journalistic enterprise, but there are 2 facts surrounding the matter which are beyond dispute. The first is that if you want to spread nincompoop conspiracy nonsense, it is necessary to paint the entirety of formerly reliable reporting outlets as biased. This will be done whether such sources are biased or not. So suddenly we are now to believe that the New York Times, Washington Post and Rupert Murcoch’s Wall Street Journal are all in bed with the left. The thing about ginned up conspiracy nonsense is that it is ALWAYS the least informed and dimmest bulbs among us that are most gullible to cock and bull explanations for their dissatisfaction and suffering. The second point, and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough, there is NO news source out there that can match the fool when it comes to lying and distorting the facts. On THIS one there really is no debate. As the monotonous daily examples of petty and stupid compulsive lying pile up in front of us, what simpleton is prepared to accept the standard pro forma explanation “fake news.”?

seawulf575's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay There is a huge difference between fact and logic and blind belief. You have the blind belief. I have stated my claims about Obama’s Constitutional violations numerous times and have even had @stanleybmanly unable to argue with them. The fact you don’t want to believe is your failing, not mine for believing the truth. As for the Clinton body count, I have proposed one simple statement that none of you liberal sheep have ever countered. Think back into your life and tell me how many people you know personally that were murdered or committed suicide or just plain disappeared. Wars don’t count. Think to yourself the total number. Now I figure most people know someone that was murdered or committed suicide. Probably several. I, myself have counted 7 in my past that I knew…through my entire life. There is a thing called statistics and in statistics you can generate bell curves from a population of data. In this case, the bell curve would range from zero to some much higher number. The peak of that bell curve would probably be around 7–10 people that a person would know personally that committed suicide or were murdered. There would be some variation. But the Clintons are up to 67, I believe. The question for all you that ridicule the thought of a Clinton body count: How, statistically, is that possible without hanky-panky? Now, to further show how statistically odd it is, my 7 are for the past almost 60 years. Their 67 are just for the past 30 years. This is logic, not blind belief. You ridiculing it is blind belief, not logic.
BTW, I also noted that you really didn’t refute my previous response. Dodging and misdirection…it is the liberal staple

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III it isn’t the airing of a video of Obama speaking on Sandy Hook that makes them biased. It isn’t them airing a speech on Trump where he looks silly that makes them bias. It is them slanting the stories. It is them editing videos to change the meaning. It is them not asking the tough questions to one party but trying to blow everything out of proportion with the other. Those are the things that make them bias. And the same applies to the right. Our journalists should report facts, not opinions. If they think they see corruption, they should dig for facts, not make innuendo. If there is outcries of corruption, they should dig for facts, not ignore the outcries or merely ridicule those that are making them. If the facts show there isn’t then they should report on those facts. That is the point.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Will you provide an example?

Here is an example of Fox making shit up:

Fox news getting sued for printing bullshit articles.

And another

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 It isn’t that I am unable to argue against your blog list. I’ve done so repeatedly, and to good effect. But it’s pointless when it’s far easier to invent supposed violations, than to research and blow holes in the crap. You grab a blog list that even you see as defective, then throw it in front of us for refutation. I will blow up the obvious trash such as that tripe about Obama violating the Constitution through failing to gain approval from Congress on the Iran agreement. But the truth is that the list isn’t worthy of the time required to refute it.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Fox News claiming there are Muslim ‘no-go’ zones where police are afraid to step.

The Atlantic – Jan 20, 2015 – Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die – Steve Emerson, who analyzes terrorism for the network, said on Fox News Sunday, “There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

LadyMarissa's avatar

The Wall Street Journal is being declared a left wing co-conspirator while Fox News is so far right they’re climbing up Trump’s ass & yet BOTH are owned by Rupert Murdoch who has always been considered a friend to Trump. Is Murdoch covering both sides of the political spectrum or are people reading things into it that just aren’t there???

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I already have provided examples. And I have also acknowledged that Fox has faked stuff as well.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I know that’s what you have to tell yourself. But the last time I posted my list you used this same bullshit excuse. So I pared down the list to just a few and challenged you to refute them. Your response was something like “Fine, so he violated the Constitution. So what? He isn’t president anymore.”. Sorry hoss…you know the truth. Too bad you can’t acknowledge facts, isn’t it?

stanleybmanly's avatar

The press—hopelessly biased leftward. The Clintons—serial murderers. Obama, one of the most honored and respected Presidents in our history—master criminal devoted only to undermining the Constitution. These criminals only succeed because those with responsibility for chasing them down (FBI DOJ, etc) are in on the coverup. But small bands of valiant patriots remain undeterred in raising the alarm. I commend you on your dedication to “the cause” and congratulate you on your tolerance for ridicule. May you never weary in your efforts to be laughed at.

ScienceChick's avatar

I just learned something about US history that might help explain all this, and it started after the American Civil War. Has anyone heard about ‘The Lost Cause’ work done by the Daughters of the Confederacy? The original ‘fake news’.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly funny that you really didn’t actually contradict me when I stated you acceded to my claims. You went off on your blatherings about conservatives and their conspiracy theories. But if you like, I can go back and actually cut and paste the conversation we had where you did it. Too much fact?

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick did your research also tell you those were Democrats with their fake news?

ragingloli's avatar

It certainly told her that those were conservatives.

ScienceChick's avatar

@seawulf575 I know that at some point in history, the Democrats and Republicans switched and the Democrats became the progressive party and the Republicans became the conservatives, if that’s what you’re getting at…... Because after, I think the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, they switched to be opposites, really, so calling the Democrats of the early 1900’s is saying that they are currently representative of the beliefs of the Republican party. Can’t tell this old bitch more lies, wulfie, darling. You forget, I work at one of those pesky liberal universities where people learn to be libtards.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick you know that at some point in history this happened? But you can’t actually point to a time or event where it happened. Let me help you. In 1963, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into being. He was a democrat. But his party absolutely hated the bill and it only got passed because Republicans supported it. So it wasn’t then. In 1972 George Wallace was a Democratic nominee running for president. He ran on a platform of segregation and white supremacy. He was shot so he didn’t get to be in the final election for POTUS, but he was doing well. But that tells me that as recently as 1972 the Dems were overtly racist. So at what point did they magically change? AND, if you happen to find some event where they magically swapped, you also have to come up with something that shows the Repubs swapped at about the same time. OR you can just admit you have bought into the rhetoric that you are peddling at that liberal university.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

@seawulf575

Yes, the Democratic party used be the favorite of segregationists when people like Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott., and Jess Helms were Democrats.

You know the parties swapped ideologies. The Klan and white supremacists openly support Republicans. That isn’t a coincedence. Black voters go 85% to 90% Democratic. Also not a coincidence.

I know you think never shutting up is “winning” an argument. It isn’t. You’re not clever. You’re not fooling anybody. You’re just disgracing yourself by typing out dishonest nonsense.

seawulf575's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay I don’t know that the parties swapped anything. The fact that blacks vote democrat means nothing as well. It just means they are not informed. If you look, there are more and more blacks turning away from Democrats because they are finally waking up. Kanye West is speaking out against Dems and slammed Obama for being a disappointment. He supports Trump because Trump has shown actual action FOR blacks. Kinda odd for a racist, isn’t it? Supporting Blacks? More and more blacks are starting to walk away. In fact, it isn’t just blacks, it is many liberals. Look up the #WalkAway movement. The Dems haven’t changed anything. They want nothing more than to keep blacks poor and ignorant and create all sorts of economic ways to do just that. The black unemployment is lower than it has been probably ever in this country. That wasn’t done by Dems…that was done despite Dems fighting against it.
And the challenge I gave to @ScienceChick I will give to you as well. Please show me the event(s) that magically made the Dems stop being racists and made the Repubs become racists.
As for winning an argument, I don’t believe never shutting up does it, but I firmly believe facts and logic should. Unfortunately I am dealing with liberals who avoid facts and logic like the plague.

ScienceChick's avatar

Geez, I don’t know how your country got so fucked up. I guess it’s because most people don’t vote and now you’re run by oligarchs and fascists. You’re so racist, it can be seen from the moon.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick I don’t think we fully understand how things got so crazy. People not voting is part of it. Allowing corruption to run rampant in our governments is another part of it. I don’t buy into the whole oligarchs and fascists thing though. Though the Nazis were Socialists, I don’t buy into that being the case here…yet.

ScienceChick's avatar

No… the Nazis weren’t socialist. They called themselves that, like a turd would call itself a rose to sound more appealing, but they were not, in any way, socialists.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes, it kind of blew my mind when I learned that in the civil war, the Republicans were the north, and the Dems were the south and bound and determined to hold on to their slaves.

seawulf575's avatar

Actually, @ScienceChick, the Nazis were socialists. They believed in the central government control over everything. They also modeled many of their efforts to eradicate the Jews after the Democratic and KKK efforts to destroy the blacks. The progressives didn’t like being associated with the Nazis so they started a campaign to claim the Nazis were right-wingers. But they were most definitely lefties.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

In your opinion^^^^^^

ragingloli's avatar

The lie that the Democrats of that time were “leftist” will never die amongst your ilk, no matter how often you are corrected.
And now the KKK is left wing, too.
There is no bottom to the depth of your delusions.
Authoritarianism and subservience to the ruling elite is certainly not a “leftist” ideology.
The kings and emperors believed in it, the various religions believed in it, hell, your dear Leader the Orangutan believes in it.
The Nazis believed in traditional gender roles.
They had strong hatred for liberal art and literature, their term for it was “degenerate art”.
They criminalised homosexuality, and murdered homosexuals in the camps.
They banded together with corporations, abolished unions, and replaced it with a fake union, to squash all attempts at collective bargaining of the workers, ensuring that the will of the corporation always reigned supreme.
They were fiercely xenophobic, seeing all other races as inferior and as threats.
They had a clear “Germany first” world view.
Sound familiar? Hint: It is not liberals that have views similar to this. It is your side that does.
Oh, and they sent social democrats, and actual socialists and communists to the concentration camps, too.

flutherother's avatar

The Nazis weren’t socialists or Democrats they were Nazis. It’s also a mistake to think Nazism was a left wing movement, it wasn’t. Nazism can arise anywhere there is contempt for the law, for a free press and for democratic institutions. Worshipping a leader as a God like hero doesn’t help either, all leaders should all be held to account.

ragingloli's avatar

Another thing:
If Democrats back then were so awfully liberal, then why is it, that it is the extreme far right that is waving around the confederate flags, craving a return to those times?

JLeslie's avatar

Democratic KKK?! Lol. Such bullshit. KKK members were Democrats back before they all became Republicans. Give me a fucking break. Those people are Republicans now, maybe some say they are Libertarians. I can’t imagine one NeoNazi or KKK member today associates themselves with the Democrats today.

ScienceChick's avatar

Again, failing 6th grade social studies. Socialism is NOT Communism. The terms are not interchangeable. Someone went to the Joe McCarthy center for politics and got their degree there. Next you’ll tell me that all the Jews were communists, too?

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

I don’t think we fully understand how things got so crazy.

Not “we”. One person here doesn’t understand much of anything at all.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Actually, after a little more thought, I can see what this guy is saying.

He’s so far to the extreme right that the Klan and Nazis actually do look like leftists in comparison.

seawulf575's avatar

I love watching all the denial on these pages. Here, let me help you with some similarities

1) Nazis practiced eugenics. Dems fight for eugenics. Ironically, the Nazis got this practice from the Democrats.
2) Nazis worked to get rid of the old, the lame, and the unwanted. Dems fight for euthanasia, and support abortion (unwanted).
3) Nazis opposed letting the unwanted go to somewhere else. Dems fight for abortion and against adoption (letting the unwanted go somewhere else).
4) Nazis used propaganda to paint their opponents (Jews) in a bad light. The Dems use propaganda from the MSM to paint conservatives in a bad light.
5) Nazis removed basic human rights from the Jews prior to killing them. Dems have tried to remove basic rights from Conservatives…trying to make any opposing opinion designated as hate speech and a crime, trying to take away the 2nd amendment, trying to quell religious freedoms.

Now….how are the Repubs like the Nazis?

And for those of you that are in total denial, the Nazis were the National Socialist Party. Today’s Dems are either self-identified socialists or can’t tell you the difference between a socialist and a Democrat.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

@seawulf575 thinks the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a democratic republic. He sure showed us!

ragingloli's avatar

1. Conservatives do. Hence their hatred for interracial relationships, and their obsession with “keeping the white race pure”.
2. Conservatives do. Hence their opposition to social security and universal healthcare. Also, abortion is about the free and personal choice of a woman. The conservative opposition to abortion has nothing to do with the fetus, but with controlling women.
3. Conservatives are opposed to letting homosexuals and other “degenerates” adopt children. Your claim that “dems” fight against adoption has no basis in fact.
4. Conservatives use propaganda. Calling the free media “fake news”, accusing people who are not as right wing as them of being “socialists”, using made up terms like “social justice warrior” and “feminazi”, concocting conspiracy theories, like FEMA being about camps to exterminate conservatives, or Obama trying to take away all “your gunz”, or using language to dehumanise other cultures by equating them to terrorists, rapists, drug dealers, or MS13.
5. Conservatives opened an actual concentration camp on cuba in 2002. It is still open. They openly support torture and assassinations. They do not bat an eye when immigrant children are ripped from their parents and thrown into concentration camps.
And here is what actual conservatives think about Jews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
https://youtu.be/RIrcB1sAN8I?t=218

ragingloli's avatar

Come to Germany.
Go to school here.
And get educated about the Nazis.
Our history lessons are quite thorough.

seawulf575's avatar

And one last piece:

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” – Adolph Hitler, May 1, 1927.

Guess that kinda says it all….Nazis were socialists. Unless all of you know something Hitler didn’t about the Nazis?

ragingloli's avatar

Of course you would rather believe Nazi Propaganda, instead of their actions.
Nincompoop.
Why am I wasting my time on a willfully ignorant putz like you?

notnotnotnot's avatar

Possibly the best self-own I have seen in a long time…

@seawulf575: “And one last piece:
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” – Adolph Hitler, May 1, 1927.

Guess that kinda says it all….Nazis were socialists. Unless all of you know something Hitler didn’t about the Nazis?”

This guy just committed suicide in public.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Come to Germany.
Go to school here.
And get educated about the Nazis.

There are plenty of normal educated people here in the US, too.

Unfortunately, we also have a huge population of feeble-minded authoritarian racists, with a major political party and a major TV network exploiting the dimwits.

JLeslie's avatar

My thing is, a lot of Republicans aren’tt racist, I’m not going to go around painting them all with a brush like that.

However, what really gets me is any Republican thinking Democrats are racist, and citing eugenics, and holding up Planned Parenthood as evidence. Do they really think black people are so stupid they will believe that schtick and start voting Republican? WTH?

No one is against adoption. I don’t know where the hell that came from? I am guessing the majority in both political parties don’t want unwanted children born, or parents who can’t take care of their children. It’s not like Republicans are out celebrating black women with 8 children who are living on welfare. Come on. Trying to project that onto Democrats is laughable.

Or, when they try to compare what the Nazis did to Jews and the disabled to the idea that America is trying to somehow not allow Christians to practice their religion. It’s total bullshit. No one is closing churches or rounding up Christians to send them to hard labor or their death. White Christians freely go into their churches, freelly put Christmas decorations in and on their house, and no one in America is trying to change that. No one.

Or, when they try to compare the Republicans of the past as the same party of the Republicans today. It’s such a disgusting twist.

The euthanasia thing is a new one for me. Let them suffer a horrible death. Unbelievable. I don’t mind that some people don’t believe in euthanasia, that’s their right, but to paint it as a way to get rid of the unwanted? Ugh.

I’m so offended and disgusted this thought process even exists.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Why would you suppose that a quote from Hitler might authenticate the Nazis as bonafide socialists? Trump claims (among other things) to be a stable genius. Is that proof enough for you? So Nazis are socialists? Are they liberals as well?

notnotnotnot's avatar

@stanleybmanly@seawulf575 did the equivalent of shitting his pants to own the liberals with this comment. I’m not sure there’s really anything else he can say, unless he comes back and says he was joking or that he was training for a role as Dinesh D’souza in an upcoming play. RIP @seawulf575.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You want to know what the American right has in common with Nazis? Let’s start off with their propensity for flag waving and blind obedience to authority, and the unceasing call to patriotism as a substitute for abstract thought. The Nazis were really big on painting the press as biased and unpatriotic. They were also quick to invent stories of supposed villainy on the part their enemies? Entire ethnic groups were painted with the broad brush of evil, just as Trump portrays refugees as rapists and criminals. Notice the propensity in both instances to plant the idea that the victims are in fact criminals, and how great effort is expended in denying them the status of human beings. The Nazis (very much like yourself) saw the need to alter history. Much like your truly stupid and laughable pretense on this very page that today’s Democratic and Republican parties reflect attitudes current at the close of the Civil War. The Nazis had their own blog lists, every bit as preposterous as your own, and they made a lot of noise about fake news, as well shreiking bullshit stories about the cortuption and “witchhunts” of the courts and law enforcement entities between them and dictatorship. Is that enough? Or would you like some more mirror images?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Time to post this video of a simple explanation of what Fake news is…https://youtu.be/_87ehzRV0AI
https://youtu.be/_87ehzRV0AI

seawulf575's avatar

Amazing. The leader of the Nazis states the party is socialists. He does it while decrying capitalism. He spells out what they believe. And the liberal jellies on here don’t want to believe it so I must somehow be wrong. You guys know more than Hitler about his party. Got it.

ragingloli's avatar

I guess I should not have put even that much faith in your ability to stay truthful.
A small fact check reveals Hitler did not say that

ScienceChick's avatar

Yellowbaby and Wulfieboi both get their information from a media outlet that can’t tell the difference between to African American singers, so what should we expect, @ragingloli ? (I’m giving them nicknames because they continue to call me ‘baby’ and ‘girl’)

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 No one disputes that Hitler said it, just as you have better sense than to dispute the blather eminating from our current egomaniac. What we find interesting is that you might be fool enough to believe that because he said it, it must be true. And while we’re about it, you should consider that if it IS true, the maniac’s “socialism” worked miraculously in dragging Germany from the economic toilet to first place in Europe. And if that weren’t bad enough, you have Roosevelt on the other side of the world employing socialism to bring THIS country out of the mire to first place in the world. My social security check goes a long way in granting me the leisure time to debate silly conservatives such as yourself.

ragingloli's avatar

@stan
I just did.

notnotnotnot's avatar

@seawulf575: “Amazing. The leader of the Nazis states the party is socialists. He does it while decrying capitalism. He spells out what they believe. And the liberal jellies on here don’t want to believe it so I must somehow be wrong. You guys know more than Hitler about his party. Got it.”

stanleybmanly's avatar

@ragingloli I’m sorry. Thank you for checking that out. It just bothers me that anyone with the sense of a gerbil would find a man who declared Jews to be vermin believable on ANYTHING else.

ragingloli's avatar

Especially when their actions later directly contradict that quote.
They allied with corporations, abolished unions and collective bargaining, and sent union leaders to the concentration camps.

rojo's avatar

People still try to stigmatize others by calling them socialists and even use the term interchangeably with the word liberal. It is a way of demonizing those you consider beneath you. Unfortunately for them but fortunately for those who were once ostracized, the term and the actions related to the term socialist are becoming more acceptable and more relevant in our present day.

Many of these same people are still afraid of the Russians because of a belief that they are still communists. Ya gotta find another reason to fear them, they have not been communists since, what?, 1991. Remember, GodReagan brought about the downfall of the Communists in Russia and the country collapsed. Thing is, Russia is more capitalist than communist at this point in their existence so maybe you could fear they are better capitalists than you are. Are they democratic? No, no more than we are but they are capitalists.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

You’re a Nazi, no you’re a Nazi…..

stanleybmanly's avatar

Let’s discuss gangster capitalism.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You are so mean to me. You don’t even know the movie The Apocalypse.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I’m confused.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Oh. Sorry. This article. It almost brings me to tears to think this ignorant clown is the president.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli did you actually read the refutation you cited? It doesn’t say Hitler didn’t say it. It says he stole it from someone else. So I guess reading comprehension is lacking on your planet?

ragingloli's avatar

No, it says that right wingers today misattributed it to Hitler, when it was from someone else. And that someone else was later assassinated on Hitler’s orders for his views.
Jesus fucking Christ, you do not even know how to read.

seawulf575's avatar

Read it again. Hitler actually said it. He didn’t create it, but did say it. That’s what your article states. So why would he say it if it weren’t true?

stanleybmanly's avatar

So Hitler quoted it, and that makes it true? Why would Trump say it if it weren’t true? Were the Jews vermin only worthy of extermination? Is Donald a “stable genius”?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly why exactly would he say it if it weren’t true…if it weren’t what he believed? You accuse me of making stuff up and believing stuff that isn’t true, but aren’t you doing that? As I mentioned, here we have Adolph Hitler saying the National Socialist German Worker’s party are socialists that are totally against capitalism. And you are denying it, yet haven’t actually proven anything nor actually presented any argument to support your ideas. But I get it…if it is true, then all your spewed hatred against conservatives is wrong. egad.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I am not spewing hatred, and again I urge you to choke the word off from your vocabulary. Hitler said a lot of things. How about this. If everything he said is true then I will never say another thing against your asinine logic. You’re so hot with the research, why don’t you tell us whether or not the Nazis carried out their “socialist” dream plans. Where were all the death camps stuffed with errant capitalists? The world’s capitalists ADORED the Nazis and grew obscenely rich for their trouble. YOU Should save yourself the embarrassment of discussing such matters until you are better grounded with the material.

seawulf575's avatar

I find it funny that you really don’t have a response to my challenge of why would Hitler have said these things if they were not true. You really haven’t answered that one. You have tried bringing in the weak argument that he has lied about things in his time in life. That is a truism as he was a human. But you really haven’t addressed this specific thing.
I don’t even have to study to answer that question…no, the Nazis did not complete their move towards their Aryan utopia. If you remember, there was a little thing called WWII that stopped their growth. But in just a few years, look what Hitler did to that country…destroyed the vestiges of the Weimar republic, made all the companies work to his policies, implemented a huge program to indoctrinate the youth of the country, wiped out what he saw as the undesirables…They were well on their way to meeting their socialistic dream. As for the world’s capitalists adoring Hitler, I will say I doubt it. Where most big industrialists made the most money was gearing up for the war effort. Ironically, this worked the opposite for the Germans. The companies were forced to work to Hitlers ideas which actually helped them with better salaries and more orders for guns and other war supplies, but their foreign trade dropped off to nil. It actually ended up being a net loss for them.

ragingloli's avatar

@stan
Please do read that article I linked.
Do not fuel his delusions.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@ragingloli You are right. Your article seals this conversation. @seawulf575 Loli’s link explains EXACTLY why Hitler said what he did regarding Nazis and socialism. The article also explains why he didn’t mean a word of it, and the party’s subsequent actions PROVED that he didn’t mean a word if it.

ScienceChick's avatar

@seawulf575 wants to think that Hitler never lied. I think I’m finding a pattern.

rojo's avatar

Hitler lied for your sins.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Hey guys we really should give up trying to convince these die hard right wingers anything,it would take something overly drastic like Trump raping a child in public, and even then they would no doubt scream fake news.
So as long as the wealthy keep getting their huge tax breaks, there are plenty of minimum wage jobs , and the military gets it’s huge increases all is well in their rep/con world.
All I can say is please get everybody who can vote,get out and vote in the midterms,maybe decimating them in the midterms might take some wind out of their sails.

stanleybmanly's avatar

But it’s important to slap down blog-bunk explanations for the way the world works. The wulf and dog shouldn’t be allowed to dangle that claptrap here unopposed. At bottom, I believe them to be decent people, but we do them no favors allowing them to walk around with that nonsense in their heads passing for dogma.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I do agree @stanleybmanly , but we haven’t done a thing to convince these die hards to change their views, if something becomes uncomfortable for them they simply go into classic deflect, deflect mode.
Fuck even claiming Hitler was a socialist .

ragingloli's avatar

I mean, you have far right extremists and Drumpf supporters going out into the streets with both swastikas and confederate flags, chanting “the jews will not replace us”, because right wing ideology is congruous with the confederacy, the nazis and Drumpf, and because they agree with all three.
And then still go on to claim that the Nazis and the Confederacy were “leftist”.
What, is Drumpf leftist now, too? Because he would have to be, if this logic were to hold.

Frankly, it does not matter if some singular idiot can not be convinced that he peddles nonsense.
But. If this clear demagogery is allowed to go unchallenged and uncorrected, others will believe these lies. And that risk requires, no, demands corrective measures.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The 2 of them get piled on pretty hard here. But consider this: the stuff they unload on us here is bubbling around out there & were it not for our 2 “believers” I wouldn’t have a clue that such silliness is being palmed off as truth. We need our conservatives and I grudgingly applaud them for standing up to withering criticism.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

They do like clinging to his lies don’t they?

ScienceChick's avatar

@stanleybmanly I’d applaud them more for coming to their senses. Right now, I’d settle for a sniff, a whiff, an inkling of a small spark of an epiphany.

ScienceChick's avatar

Not sure if this came up in the thread before, but to let you all know the murder of 5 journalists and the threat of death called multiple times on others and then the arrival of this
http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/blogs/lynchingtshirt.png?itok=c1gyXnyA

It isn’t fecking funny anymore.

rojo's avatar

kill the messenger. ^^^

ScienceChick's avatar

@rojo It’s more sinister than that. Killing isn’t good enough. They want to discredit anyone who doesn’t agree and follow their dialogue. You can’t kill all of them… just some of them… but you can discredit more by sending out propaganda in the right way. Soviet Russia learned a great deal from Nazi Germany.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Well, pop enough of their balloons and they may gain some inkling. You can actually see the wulf is out there dutifully hunting out bloggisms to drag here and declare “what about this one?” My problem is that it is so much easier to make that crap up, than to engage in the tedious job of committing to the tedious research involved in refuting it.

ScienceChick's avatar

@stanleybmanly You think he’s doing that work in earnest? I don’t think so. Also, he won’t run out of material to drag in…. and the very fact he continues to drag it in shows me that he isn’t learning shit. There IS such a thing as wilful ignorance.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Three more months…...

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And now it’s your duty to get everyone you know to get out and vote, you know the rep/cons will be out in full force so show them, by kicking their ass, and decimating them see how Trump deals when the Democrats are the GOP, personally I am going to love it.

See how well his space force flies then.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Can you become a US citizen for a sec, @SQUEEKY2?

Since the electoral college is now out of it, we should be successful. Unless people were so damn demoralized by Trump’s election.
I’m just hoping that those who didn’t vote understand what a horrible mistake they made and what the consequences of a bad leader can be…..

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sorry but this IDIOT got me intensely mad when he declared Canada a National threat to your security,Canada one of your oldest allies,biggest trading partners, a threat??
just so he could start an unjust trade war, and his loyal base just follows him, draining the swamp in D.C just to replace it from a septic tank.

I am deeply concerned what happens in your country because it always has a way of affecting us here north of the border as well.
His base, is mindless Zombies that will believe any lie he tells them, Trump has passed the 2000 lie mark since he took office,NOW I know both sides lie but good grief this guy is going for a record.
And yet his base continue to love him,he has offended every ally the states has, got cozy with Russia and yet as long as those low paying jobs are in abundance the rich keep getting their tax breaks and huge increases to your military ,it doesn’t matter about the working family he will gladly throw them under the bus.

seawulf575's avatar

Sorry kids, the @ragingloli citation was a snopes citation that was trying to say that Hitler didn’t create the quote. I don’t argue that. It does talk about another individual that originally said it and that Hitler copied it. I’m okay with that. Beyond that, it really doesn’t say anything. It speculates some, but doesn’t present hard facts to anything other than that Hitler didn’t create the quote. Maybe you all need to read it as it is, not as you want it to be. Challenge it and see if it holds up.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick I suspect you ought to see if there is an @englishchick to help you with reading comprehension. Maybe you need to read my statement again…you know…the part where I say him lying is a truism? Yeah….re-read that. I still weep for you students…more with each interaction.

ragingloli's avatar

You are embarassing yourself. Go to school. Clearly you have never seen one from the inside.

seawulf575's avatar

And let me get this right, just so we are all clear. Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist Workers Party. He publicly announces that they are socialist and are going to destroy capitalism. He basically takes control of all business in Germany. And yet, when I say he is a socialist, none of you can believe it. Yet not one of you have actually disproved it. You have just claimed he was right wing because that is what the liberal propaganda has taught you. I could continue on and point out example after example of where his policies were liberals and worse, where they are being duplicated by today’s liberals. Yet you are all in denial. But I’m the bad guy somehow. Maybe you all need to think for yourself a little.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli I thought you were from another planet. What do you know about schools? Oh wait! you are actually an Earthling that has been indoctrinated in liberals schools. Never mind…it all makes sense now.

ragingloli's avatar

Schools in Germany cover the 3rd Reich in a depth unparalleled on the rest of the planet, safe for maybe Israel.
Liberal school my ass.
You clearly have been taught nothing, otherwise you would not peddle these lies of yours here, which have been disproven thoroughly and repeatedly, regardless of your refusal to admit it.

notnotnotnot's avatar

@ragingloli – This “the real fascists are the anti-fascists”/Dinesh D’souza absurdity that @seawulf575 has engaged in wasn’t followed with “I’m just kidding” or “I take that back”. This disqualifies him from any engagement. This is top-notch troll behavior. It’s claiming that nurse sharks are nurses level of stupidity and word play that he knows is fucking inane. I’m done feeding the troll.

ScienceChick's avatar

I never thought I’d see a Hitler apologist here. I thought folks here were more vetted.

seawulf575's avatar

Run away! Run away! Someone is challenging our thoughts! Run away!!!

rojo's avatar

@ragingloli, Coverage of the Third Reich in US schools is fairly minimal (Germany bad – US good, pretty much it) but it is not singled out, they gloss over pretty much everything except the American Revolution. They no longer cover things like the Kent State killing of unarmed US citizens by American Troops on American Soil. (too embarrassing) Even the Vietnam War is but a footnote maybe getting two, three days to discuss and skipping the part where the French got us involved and then, recognizing a lost cause, got the hell outa Dodge. Let’s face it, US history classes in high school are a joke, really nothing but propaganda pap for the masses.

JLeslie's avatar

I learned about Nazi Germany in Jr. High. It made an impact on me. What most got to me was a movie we watched. I didn’t read my homework much, you might remember, but I absorbed everything shown to me in a movie, and I was good at listening to lectures. The movie made me realize the terror of it all, the horrors. The lectures emphasized that it could happen in any country, no one should feel immune. Probably, if I had read some of the materials it would have given me even more information.

I think it was later in high school that we learned about psychological tests done in the US that show how people will be obedient to order even when they know it is wrong or feel badly about the action. The old shock test. The Nazis are always referenced in those discussions. It says most people could easily be a Nazi. It also is saying have some sympathy for Nazis (that’s difficult, but I understand). Lastly, to recognize we can be swayed and brainwashed and to not fall for it.

I assume the teachings vary by state and have changed over time.

rojo's avatar

@JLeslie we have a few years on us though. The system has changed and priorities are re-arranged.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 In regards to Hitler, you’re confusing socialism with dictatorship. What Hitler did was commander German industries to juggernaut the wehrmacht. He did this to the delight of and with the full cooperation of the capitalist industrialists. He brutally destroyed the unions and murdered their leadership. Capitalists world wide, including many leading corporations in the United States made HUGE fortunes doing business with the Reich. Those fools pimping that blog bullshit about Hitler being a leftist can ONLY pawn that crap off on ignorant people, and you should be embarrassed to announce yourself as numbered smong them.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Hey @stanleybmanly any way these fright wingers can try and make the left look bad,they will take it true,not true it makes no difference.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Hitler was in fact a fascist, and whether you believe it or not, a fascist society is the capitalist vision of paradise.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And that Nationalist Socialist Party is one of those things designed to take in the gullible. It’s like “right to work state”

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly and @SQUEEKY2 here’s a concept…Stalin was a socialist…and a dictator. Funny how that happens. Oh wait! So was Pol Pot. Now Hugo Chavez was an elected president, but he was a socialist and when he first took office he drafted a new constitution that basically gave all the power to…well…him. The point is that socialist do become dictators. You seem to think that they can’t for some reason. You might need to review a real history book sometime….it has happened quite a few times. When you take power over everything and put it into the hands of a few (socialism), you enable dictators to spring up.

ScienceChick's avatar

Socialism and Communism are two different things. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist. (a form of Communism) Chavez was elected a socialist, but he claimed himself dictator and blew it, becoming not a Democratic Socialist, but just another corrupt dictator. Socialists don’t always become dictators. There have been hundreds of faithful Democratic Socialist leaders in Europe. You might want to keep up with modern politics and forget the history books you read during the McCarthy Era.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 No one claims that socialism is invulnerable to the turpitude of power mad individuals. And will you stop making assumptions on what I believe before I tell you. Not all socialist societies are doomed to dictatorship. Costa Rica and Scandinavia stand as examples of socialism flowering nicely. And “concentrating power in the hands of a few” is NOT a legitimate definition of socialism. The tag for THAT is oligarchy.

seawulf575's avatar

@ScienceChick You are correct in that Socialism and Communism are two different things. But this article:

https://classroom.synonym.com/relationship-between-socialism-communism-9790.html

also views communism as a sort of higher order socialism. They both have situations where the state owns everything. They both have the state distributing everything. Really the biggest difference is supposed to be the basis for distribution. Not that big a difference, really.
And I never stated that all socialist leaders turn into dictators. You keep reading things into my statements that were never there. Maybe I’m not clear enough, maybe you are misreading. Just like calling me a Hitler apologist…I would challenge you to show me where I ever apologized for Hitler or even said he was a good guy. I just said he was a Socialist.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Even you have to see a middle ground there are good things like social safety nets ,such as universal health care, which a study done by the right (Koch Brothers) the states would actually save money over the one you have now, that has to do your capitalist heart some good.
Public education,Police, fire protection. just to name a few.

@seawulf575 Dictators get in by claiming they are for the people and promise them the moon,sorta like draining the swamp,only to fill it right back up again from a septic tank.
Government should be in control of certain things like the environment, big business couldn’t give a fuck about it,it gets in the way of profit.
There has to be a blend of both Socialism and Capitalism, with real safety nets for everyone I know (Gasp) not just the wealthy.

gorillapaws's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 “big business couldn’t give a fuck about [the environment],it gets in the way of profit.”

I’ve got to disagree with this framing which presents the situation as an econcomy vs. environment. There are SOME businesses that create lots of negative externalities which allows them to offload their costs onto everyone else who of course don’t want to be forced to capture those costs. But problems with the environment have huge negative impacts on other businesses and industries. For example global warming will increase the costs and shorten the season for ski resorts, water pollution will impact the fishing industries, and fracking can destroy home values. Furthermore there are many economic and business opportunities in developing green tech that could be a huge benefit to the economy. Look at all of the jobs Tesla has created in the US for example.

rojo's avatar

Capitalism but not Laissez Faire Capitalism. More of a guided Socialist Capitalism where we, the people ARE the government and implement things to benefit society as a whole not just a select monied few while maintaining the free market system.

My idea is that government protects you and me from them and them from me and you and this is how it should be, particularly when they have a lot more power or influence than I and my neighbors do. What I am trying to say is that there are certain things that the government should prevent or at least minimize the impact from in businesses. Clean Air, Clean Water, Unpolluted landscapes, these should all be protected from exploitation by private citizens or corporations. They belong to everyone and everyone should have a say in what you put into them.

Regulations are, for the most part, just protections. I am not saying that sometimes they are not onerous but if they are there for a reason (to keep your coal dust out of my lungs, your CO2 out of my air, you PCB’s out of my water) and they are worthwhile. Many times they come about because someone or some business decides that profit trumps safety or cleanliness. When they do they whatever they were doing wrong becomes regulated, not just for them but for everyone involved in that particular field of endeavor.

Unfortunately, the human factor, human welfare and well being are not factored into the worth of an article in the free market system where the rule is get what you can, all that you can, for as long as you can before someone finds out you have been killing people to do so and then use all these millions to buy your way out of trouble. .

And, although we may both see that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, we often times yell past each other because we focus on one particular aspect and refuse to consider either other aspects or, more importantly, the whole picture. Or, more to the point, those who have used their monetary clout to garner power within the existing structure are going to use their bought and purchased officials to see that the problem is never resolved unless it benefits them in some manner.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

No,NO ,no our fright wingers said they were socialists so they must have been so,they would never lie, The Don Father has taught them that.

JLeslie's avatar

Socialists, capitalists, democracy, dictators, the biggest problem is when the people in charge are racist and killers, and then combine that with a population that at lease 30% agree with the idiot (that’s my number, not some sort of fact from a study) the country is screwed for a while. You don’t need a majority to totally discombobulate the country and do really heinous things.

You can get good or bad in almost any system. The thing is in a democracy, where people vote every few years, you have a chance to vote the people out, or you have some sort of check and balance to keep things from really falling apart easily.

A benevolent dictator can do amazing things for his/her people, dictator doesn’t have to be bad in theory, but what’s the chance of getting a benevolent dictator? Really low. I would never want to risk it.

Socialism has completely sucked in most parts of Latin America. It seems to be doing ok in parts of Europe. It’s beung executed differently though. It’s not totally apples to apples. I would say Venezuela is closer to communism, and part of the reason it’s terrible. Another reason is corruption among the leaders. Mexico is a democracy and capitalistic and the corruption is terrible in government, and so it falters. The corruption, the lack of integrity, in Hitler’s case his bigoted homicidal nature, that was the biggest problem in my opinion, not the type of government. That, and that a significant portion of Germans agreed with him.

What matters most in the world is that we treat each other fairly and with kindness and allow people to live safely and well. All the shit that happens is out of greed, feelings of superiority, and just a basic lack of integrity and no sense of the golden rule. These people who rise to power, who are sociopaths, are sinister. Recent studies in America show young people today have less empathy for others than generations before them. It’s a serious problem if that is true.

ScienceChick's avatar

Germany was suffering badly after World War 1. It was in upheaval and ripe for a bombastic leader who carved out a ready made scapegoat for the masses. He wasn’t instantly a hit. Before he gained power, he was found guilty of inciting a deadly riot in a coup attempt, trying to seize some power by force, with about 2000 others in his newly formed party. It failed and he was put in detention in 1925 and it was then he wrote Mein Kampf. In his own words, he said that the ‘Socicialist’ part in the party name was only and means to an end to attract the average worker. There were true Socialists involved in his party, but they were ignored and then killed by Hitler because he hated Communists as much as he hated Jews. Otto and Gregor Strasser represented the wing of Nazism (Look up Strasserism) that certainly did self-define as socialist. The Strasserites went so far as to demand the nationalisation of industry and even cooperation with the Soviet Union. If Hitler was a socialist then we’d expect the men to have flourished in his government. Instead, Otto was purged in 1930 and Gregor died along with the remnants of their ideology in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. So, if you were an actual Socialist in the Nazi party, you got kicked out and then killed.

JLeslie's avatar

The evangelical Christians (not all of them) feel better thinking Hitler was a socialist, dictator, and atheist. It’s how they make the US different and better. They think Christianity, Caputalism, and democracy makes them, us, the US, immune to bad things. They believe God blesses America, because God wants democracy, capitalism, and a Christian country.

I have been aaked more than once when I say I’m atheist, “so you’re a communist?” My response: What?! No! But, see how they put that together. It has only happened to me in the Bible Belt.

Germany was in difficult times, but I also think a lot of the German people really thought they were better than everyone else. White, Christian, civilized, educated, clean, Hitler took it farther, blonde, blue-eyed, high cheek bones. That’s how I always perceived it.

ScienceChick's avatar

Yes, @JLeslie. They want people to forget what Fascism looks like. The problem with Fascism is it enthrals the men with money and power and convinces them it is the only way to keep their money and power. It also convinces men eager for money and power and feeds off their inhumanity and greed. Dehumanising large groups of people is only one part of it. Blaming illegal immigrants for taking jobs is a great start towards that. Also, claiming they are all rapists and killers and creating a hotline to report crimes by people suspected of being illegal (https://www.ice.gov/voice) as a way to demonise them as a group. So, Joe, the unemployed sheet welder from Kentucky can blame anyone brown for his woes. Blowing up incidences of violent crime when the perpetrator is not American while ignoring the violent crime perpetrated by white American men is also part of it. Nobody seems upset at the number of domestic partners (and children) that are killed by men who, despite having been convicted of domestic abuse, still have access to guns and they shoot their ex and sometimes the kids. Why no tweets about that? The double standards are glaring and sickening. If you aren’t upset about those murders but are screaming your head off about the recent death of that poor girl, Mollie Tibbets, you might be a racist.

ScienceChick's avatar

@JLeslie I also find it shocking that in this day and age people still equate being Jewish with being a Communist. Something there is truly telling in such a long standing prejudice. I hope anyone saying that to you is over 70 years of age. We need that old bullshite to just die out.

JLeslie's avatar

Not being Jewish, being an atheist. The communists outlawed religion. It’s why the US put God in our pledge of allegiance.

Also, I really don’t think anyone thinks all Latin Americans coming in are rapists and murderers. They are saying rapists and murderers get through the cracks in our immigration system, and why should we tolerate bad oeople in our country. They still blow it out of proportion, the rhetoric has been horrible, but also the assumptions from both sides about each other is horrible.

ScienceChick's avatar

I’m not saying everyone thinks that about Latin Americans coming in. I’m saying there are people building that narrative for political ends.

JLeslie's avatar

Ok. I see your point.

I really don’t think Trump wants to deport everyone and kill people. He’s not Hitler in my mind. He’s scary enough, but not Hitler. I think he does believe in securing the border, in his mind that’s what he is trying to do. Unfortunately, he might be setting things in motion for a worse and more extreme leader. Hopefully, the US does what it typically does, and votes in someone of the opposite extreme next time, although it often takes us 8 years not 4. Not that I want the extreme, but we need to move away from the path we are on.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther