• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MSNBC, ABC hosts deem Trump inaugural address as 'militant,' 'anti-Semitic'

By changing the social contract so the average American gets a smaller share of resources and the wealthy get a larger, that reduces freedom for the average American while not even really giving much, if any, to the wealthy.

So, basically, if I fail to give some broke person a "fair" percentage of my earnings and accumulated wealth I'm screwing the poor? You figure they're entitled to my stuff just because they suck air and don't have the same things I do? It doesn't matter to you whether they do anything to earn their "fair share"?
 
The people in the 30s WERE Nazi sympathizers.

Please tell me that your brain is able to process that very clear and obvious difference.

Of course they are different. Comparison/analogy is always between two dissimilar things. The more important bit is if they're conceptually related or not. In this case, there's at least a loose conceptual relation.

If the comparison is explained, as Maddow did in this case, then the explanation determined the validity, not the presence of the word "Nazi".

And no, they were not all simply Nazi sympathizers. Their group was infiltrated by the Nazis, not orchestrated by it.

Further, President Trump seems to be a Russia sympathizer.

But let's look more at AFC's four basic tenets:

"The United States must build an impregnable defense for America.
No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America.
American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war.
"Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad."

"It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution the Jewish race suffered in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy, both for us and for them.

Instead of agitating for war the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.[14]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

Allow me to rephrase (from bolded above):

- We must build defense
- We can be safe from foreigners
- We claim to care about minorities, but then we make up an excuse to avoid following through (claiming that helping them would somehow hurt them more)
- And if you think differently, it's because bad people own the press and they're manipulating you!

Sounds pretty ****ing familiar to me.
 
If the comparison is explained, as Maddow did in this case, then the explanation determined the validity, not the presence of the word "Nazi".
The "comparison" was made to suggest that Trump is like Hitler, end of story.

Dress it up any way you want but that was the intent.
 
From Fox News:

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow emotionally proclaimed Trump's "America's First" slogan has "very dark echoes in American history."

...Over on ABC, journalist Terry Moran echoed Maddow's comments saying Trump's speech reminded him of the 1930s.

"It carries with it overtones from the 1930s when an anti-Semitic movement saying, 'We don't want to get involved in Europe's war. It's the Jews fault in Germany!'" MSNBC, ABC hosts deem Trump inaugural address as 'militant,' 'anti-Semitic' | Fox News

Were they listening to the same speech I was?!

They were, but they were seeing it through the blinders/tunnel vision of an ideology that scorns anything patriotic or forward looking that doesn't fit their point of view.

Alas, we are going to be subjected to a constant drum beat that "Trump and Hitler are interchangeable" for the next four, maybe eight years.

I just hope all those who love their country will have the back of our new President, because the mainstream media certainly will not and in fact will continue to do everything they can to make him fail.

The only thing we have going for us, is that more and more of us are begining to see and understand that, and as such we trust the MSM to be accurate or honest less and less.
 
So, basically, if I fail to give some broke person a "fair" percentage of my earnings and accumulated wealth I'm screwing the poor? You figure they're entitled to my stuff just because they suck air and don't have the same things I do? It doesn't matter to you whether they do anything to earn their "fair share"?

Why do people always fall back on this strawman? Just because you imagine "fair" to be subjective doesn't mean that the whole thing falls apart.

Adam Smith, the inventor of capitalism, famously said that the invisible hand only works in a just system.

If the poor can't participate in the economy, our economy suffers. We need to distribute enough resources so they can participate.
 
I disagree. I don't think there is a connection.


There is nothing wrong with an American President and government putting America first. It is practically the definition of good government. He said plainly that he expects other nations to do the same (and they do). We should do likewise, and concern ourselves first and foremost with what is best for America.

This does not mean ignoring the rest of the world entirely. It just means that we consider American needs FIRST and foremost before concerning ourselves with what Europe thinks, or what China wants, or something going on in Wupachoo Krackistan.

Associating it with an obscure movement from most of a century ago without real evidence of an actual connection is, IMO, disingenuous in the extreme.

I can appreciate that you may have a different opinion but that doesn't exactly address what i was trying to say.

I did not see anything to suggest that Maddow directly characterized President Trump's speech, itself, as anti-semitic. From what i understand, she was comparing a phrase he uses to one with a dark past in history. That comparison is absolutely valid- both slogans appeal to the same type of nationalism: putting country before all else.
 
The "comparison" was made to suggest that Trump is like Hitler, end of story.

Dress it up any way you want but that was the intent.

Drawing conclusions by assuming them is not sound reasoning.

I cannot claim to know Maddow's intent, but her intent is not relevant. What is relevant is whether your claim that there is absolutely no relationship between "America's First" and the name of the "America First Committee". It seems pretty obvious to me that both suggest that "America" should be "First".
 
Why do people always fall back on this strawman? Just because you imagine "fair" to be subjective doesn't mean that the whole thing falls apart.

Adam Smith, the inventor of capitalism, famously said that the invisible hand only works in a just system.

If the poor can't participate in the economy, our economy suffers. We need to distribute enough resources so they can participate.

This may be hard for you to wrap your head around but Donald Trump is talking EXACTLY about making sure that everyone can participate in the economy. That's a rather dramatic change from prior administrations over the last 60 years which have generally relied on making it easier and easier for people to choose not to participate.
 
Drawing conclusions by assuming them is not sound reasoning.
I'm not assuming anything. She did what she did to suggest that Trump is like Hitler. We don't have to guess what her motivations are because she comes right out and tells you...

Maddow on Trump: I've Been Reading a Lot About Hitler

"Over the past year I’ve been reading a lot about what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor,” Maddow responded. “I am gravitating toward moments in history for subliminal reference in terms of cultures that have unexpectedly veered into dark places, because I think that’s possibly where we are.”

Maddow said that it could get “pretty bad” if Trump becomes president and did not understand how the Republican Party could pick him out of 330 million people.

“You don’t have to go back far in history to get to almost apocalyptic scenarios,” Maddow said.

Now... tell me again about how we can't assume what her intent was?
 
I can appreciate that you may have a different opinion but that doesn't exactly address what i was trying to say.

I did not see anything to suggest that Maddow directly characterized President Trump's speech, itself, as anti-semitic. From what i understand, she was comparing a phrase he uses to one with a dark past in history. That comparison is absolutely valid- both slogans appeal to the same type of nationalism: putting country before all else.



It is the comparison which I consider, at best, a "long stretch".


A nearly-century-old movement does not own the phrase "America First" nor get to define it in a new century. The phrase itself conveys an idea that is entirely benign and reasonable. I don't think anyone expects the government of China not to put China first, or the government of Britain not to put Britain first.


The comparison is not valid because there is no tangible connection; it is a superficial resemblance which was cited for the deliberate purpose of making Trump sound evil, but without any real basis.

In short, the whole thing is BS.
 
They were, but they were seeing it through the blinders/tunnel vision of an ideology that scorns anything patriotic or forward looking that doesn't fit their point of view.

Alas, we are going to be subjected to a constant drum beat that "Trump and Hitler are interchangeable" for the next four, maybe eight years.

I just hope all those who love their country will have the back of our new President, because the mainstream media certainly will not and in fact will continue to do everything they can to make him fail.

The only thing we have going for us, is that more and more of us are begining to see and understand that, and as such we trust the MSM to be accurate or honest less and less.

The scary part of the comparison is that every single time the left has expressed concerns that the right is going to do this, that or the other it turns out that the right does none of those things but once the left gets their chance they do EXACTLY that.

The right wingers were going to riot in the streets when Hillary got elected....but it turns out that the left rioted when Trump got elected.
The right wingers were going to deny that Hillary was the legitimately elected president....but the left are denying the legitimacy of Trump.
The right wingers were going to take away people's rights but it was the left that had a sit in in the House to protest unconstitutional denial of 2A rights to anyone who had their name on the "no fly" list for any reason.
The right wing was going to force homosexuals to get married without cakes but the left put those shops out of business.
The right wing implemented and expanded a system that disenfranchised people of color but it's districts in HEAVILY left wing districts that most violent and most "disenfranchised".

Just wait, when the left gets back in power we'll see what the modern incarnation of Hitler really looks like.
 
This may be hard for you to wrap your head around but Donald Trump is talking EXACTLY about making sure that everyone can participate in the economy. That's a rather dramatic change from prior administrations over the last 60 years which have generally relied on making it easier and easier for people to choose not to participate.

It's funny you use this argument here. You seem to claim that something which is obviously bad for them (cutting benefits) is somehow magically better for them. If you had understood the economic argument, you would realize that they cannot truly participate in the economy without the freedom to refuse a job offer to, say, pursue education.
 
I'm not assuming anything. She did what she did to suggest that Trump is like Hitler. We don't have to guess what her motivations are because she comes right out and tells you...

Maddow on Trump: I've Been Reading a Lot About Hitler



Now... tell me again about how we can't assume what her intent was?

What? She's studying Nazi Germany, and you think this is meaningful proof that she's just trying to smear President Trump?

Sure, it should be no surprise that she's finding what she's looking for. However, that doesn't actually invalidate her point at all, and it certainly doesn't prove that this is just a political hack move.
 
It's funny you use this argument here. You seem to claim that something which is obviously bad for them (cutting benefits) is somehow magically better for them. If you had understood the economic argument, you would realize that they cannot truly participate in the economy without the freedom to refuse a job offer to, say, pursue education.

Lots of people.....LOTS of people...work their way through school.
 
It is the comparison which I consider, at best, a "long stretch".


A nearly-century-old movement does not own the phrase "America First" nor get to define it in a new century. The phrase itself conveys an idea that is entirely benign and reasonable. I don't think anyone expects the government of China not to put China first, or the government of Britain not to put Britain first.


The comparison is not valid because there is no tangible connection; it is a superficial resemblance which was cited for the deliberate purpose of making Trump sound evil, but without any real basis.

In short, the whole thing is BS.

Strawmen in bold.

Placing national defense above civil liberties, for example, would be making sure that, "America's First". Steamrolling individuals with nationalism is a bad thing. This isn't China, we don't conform well here, and i've always valued that a great deal.
 
What? She's studying Nazi Germany, and you think this is meaningful proof that she's just trying to smear President Trump?

Sure, it should be no surprise that she's finding what she's looking for. However, that doesn't actually invalidate her point at all, and it certainly doesn't prove that this is just a political hack move.
De Nile... not just a river in Egypt anymore.:lamo

You go WAY further to protect "your team" than I ever would. Not sure what you think you're getting for your efforts but, whatever.
 
The scary part of the comparison is that every single time the left has expressed concerns that the right is going to do this, that or the other it turns out that the right does none of those things but once the left gets their chance they do EXACTLY that.

I can assure you that you have absolutely nothing to fear from me.

The right wingers were going to riot in the streets when Hillary got elected....but it turns out that the left rioted when Trump got elected.

The left did not riot.

The right wingers were going to deny that Hillary was the legitimately elected president....but the left are denying the legitimacy of Trump.

President Trump himself implied that Hillary could be assassinated to stop her gun control agenda.

President Trump himself called for violence.

Hillary Clinton has been a rather gracious loser, far better than we could have expected from President Trump.

The right wingers were going to take away people's rights but it was the left that had a sit in in the House to protest unconstitutional denial of 2A rights to anyone who had their name on the "no fly" list for any reason.

Rights != Gun Rights

The right wing was going to force homosexuals to get married without cakes but the left put those shops out of business.

The right wanted to let business cut homosexuals out of the public. The left secured homosexuals right to participate. The business could have stayed open if it was able to lawfully serve the public.

The right wing implemented and expanded a system that disenfranchised people of color but it's districts in HEAVILY left wing districts that most violent and most "disenfranchised".

Both sides played a role in segregation. In the south, it was by law in the Jim Crow era, luckily they're long past that. Unfortunately, in the north, it's been socioeconomic segregation which generally requires costly and politically inexpedient income transfers to undo.

The left is trying to fix those problems on a wider scale because they understand that those districts often cannot afford to provide themselves with all of the necessary support.

Just wait, when the left gets back in power we'll see what the modern incarnation of Hitler really looks like.

Wow, so you whine unconditionally about the use of Hitler, and then slam the left with Hitler?

It's rather shocking for me to see all this whiney victimhood from the right post-election.
 
Lots of people.....LOTS of people...work their way through school.

Yeah, i know, i did. So what?

You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.
 
De Nile... not just a river in Egypt anymore.:lamo

You go WAY further to protect "your team" than I ever would. Not sure what you think you're getting for your efforts but, whatever.

Maddow's argument is sound. Putting the nation before the people is a bad slogan, and for good reason.
 
Maddow's argument is sound. Putting the nation before the people is a bad slogan, and for good reason.
Maddow isn't making an argument. She is quite clearly trying to advance a narrative that Trump is like Hitler and is seeking to take America down the same path that Hitler took Germany. She cited the "America First" movement of the 30's as "supporting evidence".

It could not possibly be any clearer.
 
Strawmen in bold.

Placing national defense above civil liberties, for example, would be making sure that, "America's First". Steamrolling individuals with nationalism is a bad thing. This isn't China, we don't conform well here, and i've always valued that a great deal.


Looks like you have no room to talk about strawmen.
 
Maddow isn't making an argument. She is quite clearly trying to advance a narrative that Trump is like Hitler and is seeking to take America down the same path that Hitler took Germany. She cited the "America First" movement of the 30's as "supporting evidence".

It could not possibly be any clearer.

She's saying it's a dark place when people put national identity (white christian nation undertones) before other interests like protecting individual freedom (like being Muslim) or involvement in international conflicts (like Crimea and Syria).
 
Looks like you have no room to talk about strawmen.

I'm explaining ways that America, itself, should not come first. Those are my examples, i did not mean to imply that you suggested them.
 
Back
Top Bottom