Trump audience member yells Nazi salute as protester removed from Las Vegas rally

a reply to: MystikMushroom

We are all missing quite an important tidbit of history in this thread;

Prescott Bush assisted in financing the Nazi's.

Just as Obummer is nothing more than a tool for the globalists, so is the Bush family.

A radical notion that "fascism," does not solely abide to the "right," or the "left."

ALSO, worth mentioning: this whole, "false equivalence," argument brought up.

Using the logic presented by the poster claiming the false equivalence, wouldn't it stand to reason that the AMERICAN notion of "left/right," would not be at all similar to the German views of "left/right," not to mention over five decades have passed by since then?

Don't let your own propoganda interfere with your propoganda.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

No, the Nazi's weren't socialists...

Funny how you can't spell NAZI

Without sozialistische.

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

Nazi stands for the NSDAP.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: MystikMushroom

No, the Nazi's weren't socialists...

Funny how you can't spell NAZI

Without sozialistische.

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

Nazi stands for the NSDAP.

And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Democracy and a republic

Just cause it had socialist in the name doesnt mean it was anymore than Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Democratic republic. It just wa word to get dumb people to think it is what its not.

a reply to: crazyewok

Omg

That's like saying neo nazis aren't nazis.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Omg

That's like saying neo nazis aren't nazis.

No it means like North Korea the NAZI had a really stupid name for there party that actually had little to do with there reality of what the were about. Names mean nothing, creating misleading titles to trick gullible people is nothing new.


ATS for example is called above top secret. But nothing top secret gets posted on ATS because the site would get shut down.

a reply to: UnBreakable
I haven't examined any of the candidates deeply, but Jeb Bush seems to be more moderate than some of them. What about him?

Rebublicans don't like him. I think ti's because they don't think he's a strong enough leader. That to me means he's not republican enough.

Here:
fivethirtyeight.com - Is Jeb Bush Too Liberal To Win The Republican Nomination In 2016?...

He's not a liberal by any stretch but he scored a 37 on their test. 0 is the least conservative and 100 is the most. Similar to McCain and Romney, who scored 39. His brother--GWB--former president: 46. His father--GHWB--also ormer president: 33. I think the fact both his brother and father were president is hte biggest reason he won't be. Unfortunatley, people are subtly pushing him aside because he's a Bush.

Why would anyone vote for Trump when there're candidates like him? Are they crazy? Or maybe they're just exhausted and don't care.

IMHO Jeb has the best chance of winning on BOTH sides, if enough republicans would start supporting him.

Even I can feel the urge to ignore him because he's a Bush. I won't deny it. 3 Bush presidents in less than 30 years?? No way!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

LOL @ McGowan

Excellent propaganda controlled opposition there in that book labeled as political science (aka fiction).

I won't post to the counter-points (copyright warnings you know, and the ebook is for sale of course).

But here's a general review:

By offering a radical review of the last one hundred years of US history, this work is intended as a counterpoint to the rampant revisionism of the flurry of books glorifying the "American Century". Beginning with the rather bold and decidedly controversial assertion that the current political system in place in the United States at the dawn of the twenty-first century is fascism, the first part of this book attempts to justify that claim by first defining exactly what fascism is—correcting various widely-held misconceptions—and then analyzing how closely we as a nation conform to that definition. Also included is a review of some of the hidden history and key events of World War II.

Part II offers a retrospective of the twentieth century American presidential administrations, to demonstrate that the steady and inexorable march towards overt fascism was a defining characteristic that remained unchanged. The final section looks at the still very much alive eugenics movement, and analyzes the role played by the psychiatric establishment in validating the fascist state. This book will surely find no shortage of detractors, but if read with an open mind, it just may change the way you view the world.

click same page

Great source to prove what?

The Democrat denazification agenda, that's what.

a reply to: xuenchen

Doesn't look to biased to me. How is that summary biased and in any way reflective of the Democratic party (which I'm not even a registered member of).

All I see simply your opinions of the source...so because you believe it's propaganda, it must be? That's kind of fascist...lol

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Omg

That's like saying neo nazis aren't nazis.

Omg are you 5 years old.

Neo nazis follow the doctrine to the letter...

And they're far right wingers.


You've shot yourself in the foot.

--

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

So what is the left going to compromise on.

What is the right going to compromise on?

The left needs to compromise on gun rights, religious expression and supposed systemic racism (ie stop acting like the system is pitted specifically against minorities)

The right needs to compromise on gay marriage/gay rights, see the light a little more on corporate americas capacity for corruption, and abortion (seriously, who cares if a woman aborts an embryo the size of a bumble bee?)