US Politics Thread

KS55 said:
In the 1930s there were plenty saying the same.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Or even advocating for the virtues of Hitler and Nazism, as we see on here for Trump and MAGAism.

The Daily Mail was once the country’s highest selling newspaper, but owner Lord Rothermere was more concerned with ‘Bolshevik troublemakers’ than an impending genocide​


LONDON — When Adolf Hitler entered the Reich Chancellery on January 30, 1933, the cheers of the Nazi stormtroopers in Berlin were echoed in Northcliffe House, the home of Britain’s then highest-selling newspaper.

The Daily Mail was not the only national daily to adopt an overly tolerant attitude towards Hitler during the 1930s, a position which reflected widespread public support for the government’s appeasement policy.

But it went far further than any other newspaper in sympathizing with the Nazis and it did so at the insistence of its overweening proprietor, Harold Harmsworth, the first Viscount Rothermere.

Lord Rothermere was a staunch admirer of Hitler and Mussolini, who also briefly flirted with fascism in Britain. Born 150 years ago this summer, Rothermere was also, alongside Lord Beaverbrook, the most powerful press baron during the interwar years.

As historian Piers Brendon has suggested, the two were “mad, bad, dangerous-to-know beasts in the newspaper jungle who did what they wanted.”

 
KS55 said:
The isolationist attitudes of Maga are part of the reason for Trump’s support. Many of those people simply do not support an international order or see the need for it. Maybe they don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
That is definitely an aspect of it. But then, I wouldn’t classify those people as especially “rational”, either.

I would also say that many either lack the knowledge, the interest, or the capacity to understand how Trump’s first presidency negatively impacted their lives, and how the second presidency will be very different even to that, with much more draconian and totalitarian policies and actions (particularly if MAGA takes both chambers of congress), and even more negatively impactful, both in the short- and long-term.
 
KS55 said:
The isolationist attitudes of Maga are part of the reason for Trump’s support. Many of those people simply do not support an international order or see the need for it. Maybe they don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people would support such a thing - preferably the UN.
 
KS55 said:
The isolationist attitudes of Maga are part of the reason for Trump’s support. Many of those people simply do not support an international order or see the need for it. Maybe they don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
And I would argue it isn't. MAGA has a ton of military adherents, just as an example.

Here's how it worked, IMO: Russia invades Ukraine. Democrats hold the Presidency. President acts as most Presidents (all, save Trump, whose balls Putin owns) would and supports Ukraine. GOP agenda is "own the libs" -- i.e. oppose literally every single thing they say and do, no matter how rational or innocuous, and try to make them angry, which is our revenge for them saying our ideology isn't just wrong, and isn't just stupid, but is morally-inferior to theirs.

Ergo, platform becomes "isolationist", "you're spending hurricane relief money on Ukraine", "it's Zelensky's fault they got invaded", etc. etc.

When you look at every single platform plank and comment through the "own the libs" lens, it's much easier to make sense of MAGA. It's nearly always right.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I think a lot of people would support such a thing - preferably the UN.
Click to expand...
MAGA is extremely anti-emigrant, America-first and isolationist. They've very little interest in happenings beyond America's borders and see no need for the United Nations, or NATO, or other such ilk.
 
I quite like this clip. Apart from showing how much the Republican party has changed, I can't imagine we'll see this sort of genuine exchange in politics again.

Which is a shame. It's all answering questions with another question, vitriol and dishonesty nowadays, and has been for some time.

 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
And I would argue it isn't. MAGA has a ton of military adherents, just as an example.

Here's how it worked, IMO: Russia invades Ukraine. Democrats hold the Presidency. President acts as most Presidents (all, save Trump, whose balls Putin owns) would and supports Ukraine. GOP agenda is "own the libs" -- i.e. oppose literally every single thing they say and do, no matter how rational or innocuous, and try to make them angry, which is our revenge for them saying our ideology isn't just wrong, and isn't just stupid, but is morally-inferior to theirs.

Ergo, platform becomes "isolationist", "you're spending hurricane relief money on Ukraine", "it's Zelensky's fault they got invaded", etc. etc.

When you look at every single platform plank and comment through the "own the libs" lens, it's much easier to make sense of MAGA. It's nearly always right.
Click to expand...
Maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.