Vive la France!

[Derec]

You didn't get his point. The Nazis in great part were able to slaughter millions of civilians because they made people grumpy over some stupid thing that wasn't that important (or even real).

And how were communists able to slaughter millions of people?
And I do not think you get it. Nazis did not come into power because Weimar Republic was hunky-dory and all the issues Nazis made people grumpy over were made up. Nazis benefited from the Weimar Republic being a basket-case. And while i do not think NR or German AfD are anywhere close to being "Nazi", they are benefitting electorally from the failure of mainstream parties to even acknowledge the problems with mass migration of millions of poorly vetted Muslims into Europe. The more people who dare point out problems are dismissed as "xenophobes" the more these parties will be popular.

Jebus! This reads like the alt-right SCOTUS justices in the immunity trial. But what about the underground weremoles?!

How so? The modern Antifas are direct descendens of the Communist Party paramilitaries. It would be like Proud Boys calling themselves Die Sturmabteilung and using NSDAP symbols. And yet, as a good Party loyalist, you ignore the left-wing radicals.
That's where your handle comes from? Or am I mistaken?

We are looking at a threat that is upon us, and you are still droning on about a threat that isn't real. You have allowed yourself to be lied to, just like the Germans and Italians were.

Both extremes of the horseshoe are a threat. Additionally, the Islamist invasion of western countries is a threat as well. Especially in Europe, but you see that in US as well, with Dearborn Muslims chanting "Death to America" and trying to push Biden into abandoning Israel.

 

[Derec]

That was in the FT re the Tory "Shift under Truss", but the truly shocking bit is Labour now to the right of the US Dems.

Note that this FT graphic shows only the economic axis of the political cartesian plane. That's why the classically liberal FDP is placed to the right of AfD. Or why both AfD and FN are to the left of both US and UK conservatives and barely to the right of Marcon's Renaissance.

Did the Financial Times do a similar graphic for the personal liberty (libertarian - authoritarian) axis?

 

[Politesse]

And how were communists able to slaughter millions of people?
And I do not think you get it. Nazis did not come into power because Weimar Republic was hunky-dory and all the issues Nazis made people grumpy over were made up. Nazis benefited from the Weimar Republic being a basket-case. And while i do not think NR or German AfD are anywhere close to being "Nazi", they are benefitting electorally from the failure of mainstream parties to even acknowledge the problems with mass migration of millions of poorly vetted Muslims into Europe. The more people who dare point out problems are dismissed as "xenophobes" the more these parties will be popular.

Are you arguing that the rise of the Nazi Party could have been prevented if the Weimar Republic had come down harder on Romani and Jewish populations?

 

[Derec]

It is a result of the 1980s. The conservatives sold this insane idea that austerity and lower taxes could make the world a better place. It stuck.

It was a necessary corrective to the anti-business climate of the 1970s. Note that the Labour that was in power then was the more doctrinaire Old Labour. Comrade Jezza Corbyn for example wanted to pull his party back to that version of Labour.

The Democrats were able to get back into the White House by grasping the lower taxes and some less financial regulation mantra

After a long time in the wilderness. Since 1968, interrupted only by the Jimmy Carter intermezzo 1976-1980. Republicans dominated the first six years of the 1970s and all of 1980s. A correction to the Democratic Party was necessary, and Bill Clinton was the standard bearer of that change.

(oddly enough helping to create the '08 Great Recession).

2008 crisis was caused in part by banks lending to marginal home buyers. It was also triggered by oil prices spiking to >$140/bbl - this was just before the shale revolution would more than double US production.

Thatcherism and Trickle Down economics has been proven to be an outright failure, but it is still very popular.

Have they? I will take Thacherism over Corbynism any day.

If it wasn't for the moderate courts, we'd still have criminalized gay sex and gay marriage would likely only be legal in a few states. Moderate courts pushed America to the left, not the Democrats (who admittedly did put those justices on the courts).

And as we see now, anything given by the courts can be taken away by the courts. Republicans, after losing at SCOTUS for decades, played the court game better. Now, I agree with some things - legalization of gay sex and gay marriage, legal abortions. There were many decisions I disagree with - like not ending racial preferences in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, or the Kelo decision on eminent domain in 2005.

I will say, I was surprised that even after the pains of Brexit, Britons apparently don't get they were lied to by the far-right. Then you see Derec's posts and you understand why. They've been deluded into thinking it isn't their fault for voting for that crap, it is the migrant horde. Fuck we're screwed. We've lost. The End Game just needs to finish up.

I think your Ilk are the deluded ones. Sure, the hordes of mass migrants are not responsible for all our problems. And migrants are not all the same. And that is exactly my problem with left-wing attitudes toward migration. The Left insists that any kind of migrant is good (even Islamist radicals or those fleeing legitimate criminal prosecutions in their countries), or that any level of migration is beneficial, no matter how many want to come. And anybody who disagrees is labeled as a "xenophobe" as a thought-terminating cliché.
Face it, the Left can be as doctrinaire as the Right. If the far Right says "all migrants are bad" and the far Left says "all migrants are good", then both are wrong.

 

[Derec]

Are you arguing that the rise of the Nazi Party could have been prevented if the Weimar Republic had come down harder on Romani and Jewish populations?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that - I only said that the Weimar Republic had problems (mostly stemming from the aftermath of WWI including onerous Versailles treaty obligations) that Nazis capitalized on.

 

[Derec]

One could, if one wished to sound like a Magatard.

In other words, you have nothing other than childish insults.

 

[Derec]

Oh for sure. They are spend just as much as democrats, but on programs that they prefer (mostly defense spending).

Well, defense is a necessary spending and one explicitly mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution. Unlike say "free" childcare or extended child tax credits that Dems' $3.5T spending package was filled with.
Say what you will about Trump, and there is a lot of things one can legitimately say, but one thing he did right is push our NATO allies to contribute their fair share to common defense of the Alliance.

My only point here is that many many Americans believe that when republicans are elected, the deficits go down. And this is just totally wrong. If taxes go down but spending goes up, deficits go up.

The problem with these comparisons is that no two terms are equal so you cannot compare like with like. It's not like we can compare Trump's deficits with what they would be under President Hillary. Or W's with Gore's. You can compare W with Obama or Clinton, but they acted in very different environments from one another. Trump is faulted for massive deficits in 2020, but any president, including Hillary, would have had to run up yuge deficits in response to COVID.

 

[Derec]

Hah. Rich WASP type academy. Brown kids of different religions are allowed in if they boost test scores or run fast. Religion is nominal. It’s all about the Benjamins.

When religion is nominal, it is no problem. It becomes problem when its no longer nominal and its adherents yell things like "Death to America" in Dearborn and "Der Kalifat ist die Lösung" ("The Caliphate is the solution") in Hamburg.

 

[Politesse]

Are you arguing that the rise of the Nazi Party could have been prevented if the Weimar Republic had come down harder on Romani and Jewish populations?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that - I only said that the Weimar Republic had problems (mostly stemming from the aftermath of WWI including onerous Versailles treaty obligations) that Nazis capitalized on.

I am not, I am asking what you meant. Your logic makes no sense, though. If the real issue is treaty obligations, why would your analogy have any relevance to the present situation? What would have prevented the Nazis from coming to power? Or is that not our shared goal? Should Germany have been released from its war debts, would that have convinced Hitler to lay down arms and beg his countrymen to return to the fold?

 

[Bomb#20]

What would have prevented the Nazis from coming to power?

A Marshall Plan instead of a Treaty of Versailles.

 

[Politesse]

What would have prevented the Nazis from coming to power?

A Marshall Plan instead of a Treaty of Versailles.

My question was to Derec. If I ask you the obvious follow-up question, you'll just be like, "well, I never said anything about immigrants and neo-Nazis".

 

[Bomb#20]

What would have prevented the Nazis from coming to power?

A Marshall Plan instead of a Treaty of Versailles.

My question was to Derec. If I ask you the obvious follow-up question, you'll just be like, "well, I never said anything about immigrants and neo-Nazis".

Which follow-up question, the one about which populations the rise of the Nazi Party could have been prevented if the Weimar Republic had come down harder on? Wait, don't tell me -- the Nazi population? There was this one guy from that population who was released nine months into his five year treason sentence -- if he'd done his full five years his party might not have risen to power. Regardless of when they released him, he was a criminal and an immigrant, so the obvious way for the Weimar Republic to come down harder on him would have been to deport him back where he came from. If they'd done that his party might not have risen to power. So yeah, sounds to me like Derec's analogy has some relevance to the present situation.

(Of course, if our shared goal is to prevent Nazis from getting power in France, it would seem the very first thing we should all be able to agree on is that France should stop importing Nazis. Yes, I know it's customary to call them "islamofascists", but calling them that isn't really fair to Mussolini, who for all his faults at least wasn't an antisemite. We have a special word for the special type of fascist who has a special hatred for the Jews, and it isn't "fascist".)

 

[Politesse]

What would have prevented the Nazis from coming to power?

A Marshall Plan instead of a Treaty of Versailles.

My question was to Derec. If I ask you the obvious follow-up question, you'll just be like, "well, I never said anything about immigrants and neo-Nazis".

Which follow-up question, the one about which populations the rise of the Nazi Party could have been prevented if the Weimar Republic had come down harder on? Wait, don't tell me -- the Nazi population? There was this one guy from that population who was released nine months into his five year treason sentence -- if he'd done his full five years his party might not have risen to power. Regardless of when they released him, he was a criminal and an immigrant, so the obvious way for the Weimar Republic to come down harder on him would have been to deport him back where he came from. If they'd done that his party might not have risen to power. So yeah, sounds to me like Derec's analogy has some relevance to the present situation.

(Of course, if our shared goal is to prevent Nazis from getting power in France, it would seem the very first thing we should all be able to agree on is that France should stop importing Nazis. Yes, I know it's customary to call them "islamofascists", but calling them that isn't really fair to Mussolini, who for all his faults at least wasn't an antisemite. We have a special word for the special type of fascist who has a special hatred for the Jews, and it isn't "fascist".)

Your argument being that... too.many Germans were allowed into Germany? Or that the Jews and Romani were the '"real Nazis"? I presume those aren't your intended points, but your analogy makes no sense. The Nazi party was not a party of recent immigrants, they were extremist nativists, who would agree with every single point you're making here. Shut down the borders, end "political correctness", and refer to foreigners as the existential threat they are. You might not support their cause, but the Nazis would certainly support yours.

 

[Canard DuJour]

That was in the FT re the Tory "Shift under Truss", but the truly shocking bit is Labour now to the right of the US Dems.

Note that this FT graphic shows only the economic axis of the political cartesian plane. That's why the classically liberal FDP is placed to the right of AfD. Or why both AfD and FN are to the left of both US and UK conservatives and barely to the right of Marcon's Renaissance.

Did the Financial Times do a similar graphic for the personal liberty (libertarian - authoritarian) axis?

Dunno - and dunno where the Tory party is on that axis. Their rhetoric and voter base is all 'family values' and little Englander, but their policies are neoliberal market globalist. Amazing that someone didn't split their vote before now.

 

[Bomb#20]

My question was to Derec. If I ask you the obvious follow-up question, you'll just be like, "well, I never said anything about immigrants and neo-Nazis".

Which follow-up question, the one about which populations the rise of the Nazi Party could have been prevented if the Weimar Republic had come down harder on? Wait, don't tell me -- the Nazi population? There was this one guy from that population who was released nine months into his five year treason sentence -- if he'd done his full five years his party might not have risen to power. Regardless of when they released him, he was a criminal and an immigrant, so the obvious way for the Weimar Republic to come down harder on him would have been to deport him back where he came from. If they'd done that his party might not have risen to power. So yeah, sounds to me like Derec's analogy has some relevance to the present situation.

(Of course, if our shared goal is to prevent Nazis from getting power in France, it would seem the very first thing we should all be able to agree on is that France should stop importing Nazis. Yes, I know it's customary to call them "islamofascists", but calling them that isn't really fair to Mussolini, who for all his faults at least wasn't an antisemite. We have a special word for the special type of fascist who has a special hatred for the Jews, and it isn't "fascist".)

Your argument being that... too.many Germans were allowed into Germany?

No, one too many Austrians. Going easy on foreigners who abuse your country's hospitality is a choice, and it has consequences.

Or that the Jews and Romani were the '"real Nazis"?

You really are committed to rhetoric over substance, aren't you? The "real Nazis" are the Islamists; and you're the one falsely implying Le Pen is a Nazi in a country with a megadose of real Nazis you ignore, much the way you falsely accuse Israelis of genocide while actually genocidal Hamas thugs are standing right next to them.

I presume those aren't your intended points, but your analogy makes no sense. The Nazi party was not a party of recent immigrants, they were extremist nativists,

I must have missed the step where you show that "analogy have any relevance to the present situation" means "the two situations are exactly parallel in all respects". Can you go over that part again?

who would agree with every single point you're making here. Shut down the borders, end "political correctness", and refer to foreigners as the existential threat they are. You might not support their cause, but the Nazis would certainly support yours.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar with your fondness for ad hominem arguments.

The Nazis didn't get 37% of the German vote because the voters hated Jews and Romani. They got it because with the rapid growth in support for the Communists, the public had reason to think the Nazis were the lesser evil, and they'd lost confidence in the moderate parties' ability to govern. When the center doesn't hold something dangerous is going to happen on the flanks.

 

[bilby]

No, one too many Austrians. Going easy on foreigners who abuse your country's hospitality is a choice, and it has consequences.

Sorry, but just...No.

Austrians were more German than the Germans. The only reason Austria wasn't included as part of Germany in the 1860s and '70s was that the Prussians wanted control, and didn't have the clout to exert it if Austria was part of the federation; Prussia and Austria actually went to war briefly over this question, underlining the fact that Austria was the only German state able to stand up against Prussian dominance.

Austria was the bit of Germany that was too German for the Prussians.

Hitler didn't think of Austria as "non-German", and many Austrians, and most Germans, agreed with him on that score.

He wasn't a "foreigner". He had fought in the German army in the Great War, his first language was German, and he was part of a large movement with popular support on both sides of the border that held that Austria's exclusion from Germany sixty years earlier was a poor decision that needed to be rectified.

Austrians, particularly pro-German Austrians, were no more "foreigners" in Germany than Northern Irish Unionists are "foreigners" in the UK today.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Oh for sure. They are spend just as much as democrats, but on programs that they prefer (mostly defense spending).

Well, defense is a necessary spending and one explicitly mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution. Unlike say "free" childcare or extended child tax credits that Dems' $3.5T spending package was filled with.
Say what you will about Trump, and there is a lot of things one can legitimately say, but one thing he did right is push our NATO allies to contribute their fair share to common defense of the Alliance.

Well, is my statement false? If we are discussing deficits, spending is spending. I agree that defense spending is needed. The point here is that deficits go up when spending goes up and taxes go down. Sorry for the derail in this post!

My only point here is that many many Americans believe that when republicans are elected, the deficits go down. And this is just totally wrong. If taxes go down but spending goes up, deficits go up.

The problem with these comparisons is that no two terms are equal so you cannot compare like with like. It's not like we can compare Trump's deficits with what they would be under President Hillary. Or W's with Gore's. You can compare W with Obama or Clinton, but they acted in very different environments from one another. Trump is faulted for massive deficits in 2020, but any president, including Hillary, would have had to run up yuge deficits in response to COVID.

Okay. I've been voting since 1986. Regan was the first republican in my lifetime who claimed that the deficit would go down under his watch. It didn't. It goes up with every republican administration. Every single one. And yet, most people assume that republicans are better at managing the deficit than dems. It's BS.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, one too many Austrians. Going easy on foreigners who abuse your country's hospitality is a choice, and it has consequences.

Sorry, but just...No.

Austrians were more German than the Germans. The only reason Austria wasn't included as part of Germany <snip> held that Austria's exclusion from Germany sixty years earlier was a poor decision that needed to be rectified.

Austrians, particularly pro-German Austrians, were no more "foreigners" in Germany than Northern Irish Unionists are "foreigners" in the UK today.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from any of the facts you offer as if they were support. Northern Ireland is legally part of the UK and Austria was legally not part of Germany. None of what you say is on point. The point is the German courts had entirely adequate legal grounds to deport him and if they'd availed themselves of the opportunity much subsequent misery could have been averted. Of course there were cultural reasons they didn't. Duh! Well, there are likewise cultural reasons for why today's French courts don't deport immigrant Islamist criminals, even though that too would avert much subsequent misery. Culture is destiny.

 

[Copernicus]

No, one too many Austrians. Going easy on foreigners who abuse your country's hospitality is a choice, and it has consequences.

Sorry, but just...No.

Austrians were more German than the Germans. The only reason Austria wasn't included as part of Germany <snip> held that Austria's exclusion from Germany sixty years earlier was a poor decision that needed to be rectified.

Austrians, particularly pro-German Austrians, were no more "foreigners" in Germany than Northern Irish Unionists are "foreigners" in the UK today.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from any of the facts you offer as if they were support. Northern Ireland is legally part of the UK and Austria was legally not part of Germany. None of what you say is on point. The point is the German courts had entirely adequate legal grounds to deport him and if they'd availed themselves of the opportunity much subsequent misery could have been averted. Of course there were cultural reasons they didn't. Duh! Well, there are likewise cultural reasons for why today's French courts don't deport immigrant Islamist criminals, even though that too would avert much subsequent misery. Culture is destiny.

If by "him", you mean Hitler, he left Austria in 1913, renounced his Austrian citizenship in 1925, and became a German citizen in 1932. He hated Austria's multiethnic composition under the Habsburgs. He considered Austria proper to be a part of Germany. That's what the Anschluss was all about.

 

[Bomb#20]

If by "him", you mean Hitler, he left Austria in 1913, renounced his Austrian citizenship in 1925, and became a German citizen in 1932. He hated Austria's multiethnic composition under the Habsburgs. He considered Austria proper to be a part of Germany. That's what the Anschluss was all about.

And? The court actions in question were in 1924.