Can anyone making this comparison cite sources where the collectivist, totalitarian National Socialists reduced the size of the state? It seems like a contradiction in terms. Since when did 19th century liberalism and the founding principles of individual liberty become equated with collectivist totalitarianism?
No one needs to do that. No one is obliged to you to find the exact policy parallels between Republicans in the White House and the Nazis.
It tends to be enough for most people to notice the fact that both are interested in removing undesirables from public life and generally making society less racially mixed.
>No one needs to do that. No one is obliged to you to find the exact policy parallels
Then the claims are unsubstantiated. Political speech is some of the most twisted and manipulated. Unsubstantiated political claims are basically worthless. I'm willing to trust, if you are willing to verify. Engage in the discussion if you are serious about your claims.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a National Socialist", is a tired line I've been reading on the Interwebs for a long time now. If you are unwilling to substantiate it, it is an odious comparison that trivializes one of the most murderous ideologies of the last century, second only to communism. These ideas demand serious treatment.
If you genuinely care about such things, you would take them more seriously. You might take the time to understand the genesis of these collectivist ideologies. After that, you might choose to champion ideals which stand in contrast. Individualism and individual self-ownership as the basis of private property would be one approach. Those who reason from these first principles are generally in favor of reducing the size of the state.
Sorry, no. I don't have time for dictionary-waving pedantry like this.
Political speech is perfectly understandable as such. It's the opposite of worthless, if you are trying to make a political point, as I was. I was very clear about the important (not total) parallels between then and now. I trivialize nothing.
Am I going to find you defending mainstream Democrats from accusations of socialism, or is your impassioned defense of the Republican party as it existed up until 10 years ago all you're offering?
Words have meaning. We should be willing to agree upon that much. Worry less about who you perceive me to be on the partisan spectrum and try to focus on the words I have written.
I don't see a defense of the Republican Party here. Overall I'd rate them as a big disappointment. Although Trump coming out strong and cutting is a reason to be cautiously optimistic. It certainly isn't a reason to invoke Godwin's Law. As I've explained repeatedly here, cutting government is basically the opposite of the National Socialist economic program. If you are not informed enough to dispute this, then now would be a good time to do some research for yourself.
I'm well aware of the words you've written. Are you waiting for me to say you're right, or that you make a good point? Do you think people think of the Nazis' economic programs before anything else?
You dodge the question that puts the lie to your high-minded concern about using words according to their precise definition, which is unreasonable and serves to inhibit discourse, as you must realize.
You need only actually read one of his executive orders - again, ILLEGALLY directing appropriated funds not be spent - to see that cutting government is not the only thing these ideologues are attempting to do.
You might, finally, look into what Godwin himself has said regarding his "law" and Trump.
No, I was hoping you might substantiate your claims. Cutting spending stands in direct contrast to totalitarian ideology. If you cannot approach that we shall move on.
>removing undesirables from public life and generally making society less racially mixed.
Is this what you think debating is? It's pretty pathetic. I'll make you a deal, I'll substantiate a claim or two if you stop consistently ignoring which specific costs the administration is "cutting", and why. Read the executive order on education.
And again, I must say to anyone who doesn't have their head in the clouds, they are breaking federal law by not spending congressionally-appropriated funds.
>The institute was financed by the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Foundation, a charity which itself was funded by private donations.
Again, the National Socialists increased the purview of the state by interfering with a privately run and privately funded non-profit. They used public funds to attack and regulate private, voluntary behavior.
