Forum Post: For years, Adolf was dismissed as a BUFFOON… yep, just like Donald.
Posted 8 years ago on July 17, 2016, 9:20 p.m. EST by TIOUAISE
(2526)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
According to Michael Berumen, Hitler early on was seen as a buffoon:
"Throughout most of the 1920s and up to 1933, Adolf Hitler was a laughing stock and a figure of derision among the elites on both the conventional right and left, including the governing and military classes. He was thought to be a comical buffoon by the political cognoscenti; a crass vulgarian by the upper classes; a semi-literate theorist by the professoriate; and as a silly erstwhile corporal and martinet by the senior officers of the Reichswehr…
For months until his lead in the polls became worrisome even to some leading figures on the U.S. right, Trump was written off as a lightweight. The Huffington Post famously announced back in July 2015 that it would categorize all Trump stories as “entertainment” rather than “politics.”
Barrie Zwicker argues that Trump embodies "the worst manifestation of fascism: resurgent Nazism"… no less.
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/12/20/is-trump-a-fascist-its-much-worse/
"Don't worry. Be Happy"
Would Wall St. puppet 'the Donald' respond less to the strings of the real rulers than any other martinet has and will always in the dance of the shadowed governing theatre?
The masters of economy will not allow right or left wing despotism be perceived, except in the furtherance of their own control of our lives, which is almost total.
That's not to say that things won't be marginally better on the Hillary wagon. However, no one has openly addressed the source of the real problem in the world today. The real and mostly realized threats to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness all rule from their thrones on Wall St.
Pundits worry: "Will Trump sink the GOP?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-gop-control_us_5782d526e4b0c590f7e9ec0d
I ask myself: "Will Trump sink the US of A?"
After all, he makes no secret of his admiration for some of the world's worst dictators:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-history-praising-dictators-n604801
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/controversial-dictators-leaders-donald-trump-praised/story?id=40373481
Yes, I think that Hillary could "sink" the US of A.." Oh that's right, you were talking about Trump. The election of either of them does not bode well for the people.
You do have a point there, Viking. But at least Hillary does not profess to admire Mussolini, Putin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Un, Gaddafi, etc. Nor does she applaud the perpetrators of the Tien an men massacre.
And there's another point that needs to be made. I'm an old guy, a flower child of the sixties who saw JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. get gunned down one after the other. Does anyone on this forum seriously think that Bernie Sanders could have become President and stayed President for more than a few weeks or perhaps months? Does anyone seriously think that the Power Elite would have allowed his "political revolution" to even take off? Am I wrong? If so, please tell me as I would LOVE to be proven wrong in my fatalism.
Of course, Bernie would not have been gunned down. We are no longer in the sixties and there are now INNUMERABLE ultra-hi-tech, covert ways of killing a man, such as directed energy weapons or radiation to induce cancer. There are even weapons sophisticated enough to induce a sudden heart attack, which the uninformed general public will think of as a perfectly "natural" death…
So maybe after all it's better to have Bernie alive than President?
Only because she is sane enough to know that that wouldn't go well with her electorate!
She was also sane enough to try to steal Bernie's platform as her own and to give it the lip-service required to get public support.
I get your drift. But I still think Hillary is a "lesser evil" than The Donald. I can certainly imagine her making mistakes, getting the country involved in wars, etc., but I can't see her suddenly morphing into the female version of Adolf Hitler. And that may be one of the reasons why Bernie in the end decided to pinch his nose and support her. I suspect he thought long and hard about it and came to the conclusion that Hillary was less dangerous to the country and to the world than Trump.
Has she chosen a VP candidate yet? If she was at all smart, she would choose Elizabeth Warren, who is trusted and respected by the progressives as well as the young. Any other choice, in my opinion, would lead millions to abstain from voting… with potentially disastrous results.
The ball is in Hillary's court: she needs to prove that, in spite of all her shortcomings, she can take the pulse of the nation and grow as a person. Surprise us and yourself, Hillary, please, show us that you care.
P.S. I just heard that Hillary picked Senator Kaine. Wrong choice in my opinion. I just can't believe she passed over Elizabeth Warren! Tthat mistake may end up costing her millions of votes… perhaps even the election.
Anything at this point in time to get voters to go third party is in my opinion a good thing.
I'm not so clear as you are about that.
Take the example of the recent election in Canada, that finally put an end to ten years of the infamous "Harper regime".
If Harper had been reelected for yet another term, the Canada we know and love would have basically collapsed. Justin Trudeau and the Seventh Cavalry arrived just in time to put an abrupt end to Conservative rule. And the whole world cheered. In his first post-victory speech at the UN, Trudeau announced: "Canada is back!!!"
Harper had to be sent to the penalty box URGENTLY. And somehow the Canadian people sensed that… But for a very long time the progressive vote seemed evenly split between the Liberals and a third party, the NDP - and that split was a disaster. I myself was hoping that they would form a strategic coalition just for the coming election. 60% of Liberals favored such a coalition.
But in the end egos got in the way and the coalition never materialized... However, at just the right moment during the last weeks of the campaign, Trudeau's Liberals took a commanding lead and I think Canadians felt an urge, a longing to be finally free of the archaic Conservative government. And so on election night they gave Trudeau an unexpected landslide majority. Sadly, a lot of fine MPs from the NDP were defeated in the process, but the party was not destroyed and it will recover. But at long last Canada was free from the clutches of the Conservatives. THE END of a dark decade!
Is there a lesson to be learned here for Americans who want to go third party? Maybe so, maybe not… You be the judge. But I would say that Canada's recent experience does provide us with food for thought.
sHillary Rotten Clinton is just as toxic as is Drumpf - the only real difference being - is that she seems to have a public speaking filter that allows her to not spew socially unacceptable crap while running for office. Once she has office though - she can hold her own with crap like super predators in low income neighborhoods (politispeak for black men).
If that is so, then would someone please explain to me WHY Blacks seem to vote massively for the Clintons?
With the breadwinners in jail, the families became even more dependent on social benefits by voting for the demonkrapts who pay labia service to preserve the status quo.
Even after their once breadwinners had been released from jail, many families were still haunted by persistent unemployment because employers would not hire ex-convicts.
New York City's successful transition from high-crime to low-crime offers guidance. There need to be restorative and preventive programs put into place first before the police's striking fears into the hearts of would-be criminals. There were both love and fear from the crime-ridden neighborhoods but the net effect was crime rates going down.
By and large, the police living up to its 'to serve and to protect' motto is respected although some errors result in innocents' being injured or killed.
Blacks do not have much intergenerational passdown of historical knowledge. Massive incaceration of blacks due to the war on crimes and toughened sentencing from Clinton-year laws disrupted black families.
Do me one better - tell me why there are any Black republicans - you know the party of subjugation suppression oppression and slavery.
Great question! But it still doesn't answer mine: why, oh why did Blacks not massively support Bernie? Apparently it would have made a huge difference in a great many states… perhaps enough to secure the party nomination.
Tufts University (which seems to have a very strong school of international relations) has a great cultural map identifying the 11 nations of North America here: http://emerald.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
Bernie (representing Vermont in Yankeedom nation) and the blacks belong to different nations but Mx. Cheese and the blacks have a carpetbagger's affiliation when she was in Arkansas in Deep South nation.
Intergenerational amnesia. Not strictly a black phenomenon. The Great Depression and the Great Recession showed why history rhymes.
Excessive speculation due to high leverage is evil, regardless of what instruments being involved, be they stocks, bonds, margin loans, credit default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, houses, condominiums, etc.
The Republicans freed the black slaves so it was not always the oppressive party that it had become.