It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Vs Hitler.

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
A thread that starts off full retard.

It's like coming across an end of the world road sign, preposterous yet funny.




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I think Hitler would be sh*t scared of trump!


I agree. Imitation is the highest form of flattery but there comes that time when it's competition.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Both Hitler and Trump lets face it where on the right of the political spectrum both held very strong nationalistic ideologies. My inspiration for this writing this thread actually comes from watching Trumps inauguration speech. You don’t even need to read between the lines of his speech to get the message that he has essentially flipped the bird to the rest of the world saying "piss of globalism, I am putting America first.... the rest of you can go....” Trump supporters might not like to acknowledge it but that is similar to the message that Hitler preached during his rise to power.

Another interesting similarity is that both men came to power during a time of economic and social unrest.
...
The most obvious similarity between the two leaders in my view is how both Hitler and Trump have identified a group in society to blame for its problems and are targeting these groups.


So why isn't this thread titled "Trump v Washington"?

Washington came to power in a time of economic and social unrest.

Washington was outraged at the actions of London and blamed them for many of the problems.

Washington's nationalistic ideology was strong enough that it took him into a War for Independence.

Why "Trump v Hitler" rather than "Trump v Washington"? Is it because you already decided that he's Literally Hitler (TM) and you're just trying to create an opportunity for everyone to agree with you, under the rather transparent guise of "reasoned debate" (nudge nudge wink wink)?

You don't really need to answer; the question is rhetorical. That's exactly why you made this thread, chose that comparison, and phrased it in that way.

Not that I mind, I've done similar things, but at least have the decency to be upfront about it.


That's not an unfair comparison. How many native Americans do you see celebrating his birthday?

We like Washington because we benefited. I'm sure the Germans would have been looking at Hitler as a hero in hindsight had he succeeded.

So yeah... Washington was like Hitler. Which is why it's a joke to celebrate him.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I'd kind of like to see a Trump vs. M. Bison thread.

Does Trump have "Psycho Power"?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
So yeah... Washington was like Hitler. Which is why it's a joke to celebrate him.


So where do you draw the line?

Gandhi and Hitler? Both were passionate and inspiring speakers to their followers, both came to prominence incredibly fast, both fought against an evil "foreign influence" (Gandhi against the Brits, Hitler against the Jews), both were fairly racist (Hitler's Aryan supremacy, Ghandi's vocal dislike of black people).

Mother Theresa and Hitler? Both were European, both wore snazzy uniforms, both were charismatic leaders in their own ways. Both lived under the same moral code (though MT lived under it as the victim while AH lived under it as the victimiser). Both were deeply committed to their cause.

If you really wanted, you could draw up a reasonable comparison between Hitler and anybody, even the Pope and Jesus himself.

Literally Hitler(TM) gets really ridiculous, really quickly.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

actually your both wrong, but you were right about how he kept on manipulating the system.
hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg, after two elections that failed to put his party in majority control.

i posted this in the coup thread and i'll post it here.

a wiki, cause it's fast. check any source you want they will say the same.


The absence of an effective government prompted two influential politicians, Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg, along with several other industrialists and businessmen, to write a letter to Hindenburg. The signers urged Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as leader of a government "independent from parliamentary parties", which could turn into a movement that would "enrapture millions of people".[139][140] Hitler, at the window of the Reich Chancellery, receives an ovation on the evening of his inauguration as chancellor, 30 January 1933 Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler as chancellor after two further parliamentary elections—in July and November 1932—had not resulted in the formation of a majority government. Hitler headed a short-lived coalition government formed by the NSDAP and Hugenberg's party, the German National People's Party (DNVP). On 30 January 1933, the new cabinet was sworn in during a brief ceremony in Hindenburg's office. The NSDAP gained three posts: Hitler was named chancellor, Wilhelm Frick Minister of the Interior, and Hermann Göring Minister of the Interior for Prussia.[141] Hitler had insisted on the ministerial positions as a way to gain control over the police in much of Germany.[142]National People's Party (DNVP)/ex]

then further down,

On 2 August 1934, Hindenburg died. The previous day, the cabinet had enacted the "Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich".[164] This law stated that upon Hindenburg's death, the office of president would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor. Hitler thus became head of state as well as head of government, and was formally named as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor).[165] With this action, Hitler eliminated the last legal remedy by which he could be removed from office.[166]
Adolf Hitler



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie


actually your both wrong, but you were right about how he kept on manipulating the system.

He never stopped manipulating everybody to get sole power. Not just him either, Goering and Goebbels worked hand in hand to subvert power and authority away from the state and Parliment to Hitler exclusively.

Its a difficult read because its so detailed, reflecting the machinations of the Nazis to not rest until they had taken over completely.


The President, backed by the Army and the conservatives, had made him Chancellor. His political power, though great, was, however, not complete. It was shared with these three sources of authority, which had put him into office and which were outside and, to some extent, distrustful of the National Socialist movement.
Hitler's immediate task, therefore, was to quickly eliminate them from the driver's seat, make his party the exclusive master of the State and then with the power of an authoritarian government and its police carry out the Nazi revolution. He had been in office scarcely twenty-four hours when he made his first decisive move, springing a trap on his gullible conservative "captors" and setting in motion a chain of events which he either originated or controlled and which at the end of six months would bring the complete Nazification of Germany and his own elevation to dictator of the Reich, unified and defederalized for the first time in German history.

Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, excerpts




edit on 1-2-2017 by intrptr because: external content



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You do understand Israel just nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. bwhahahahahahahahahahah 5 4 3 2 1 watch the leftists head explode.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Abysha
So yeah... Washington was like Hitler. Which is why it's a joke to celebrate him.


So where do you draw the line?

Gandhi and Hitler? Both were passionate and inspiring speakers to their followers, both came to prominence incredibly fast, both fought against an evil "foreign influence" (Gandhi against the Brits, Hitler against the Jews), both were fairly racist (Hitler's Aryan supremacy, Ghandi's vocal dislike of black people).

Mother Theresa and Hitler? Both were European, both wore snazzy uniforms, both were charismatic leaders in their own ways. Both lived under the same moral code (though MT lived under it as the victim while AH lived under it as the victimiser). Both were deeply committed to their cause.

If you really wanted, you could draw up a reasonable comparison between Hitler and anybody, even the Pope and Jesus himself.

Literally Hitler(TM) gets really ridiculous, really quickly.




Nobody reasonable is drawing the conclusion of Trump being a Hitler. People compare the rise of power and ideologies between the two. None of those other examples are similar yet Trump's seizing of power and the people surrounding him does have a lot of parallels with Hitler's rise.

It's not that people are calling Hitler because they don't like him; they are saying his history so far in politics (and his rhetoric) shares the same traits.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
Nobody reasonable is drawing the conclusion of Trump being a Hitler. People compare the rise of power and ideologies between the two. None of those other examples are similar yet Trump's seizing of power and the people surrounding him does have a lot of parallels with Hitler's rise.

It's not that people are calling Hitler because they don't like him; they are saying his history so far in politics (and his rhetoric) shares the same traits.


Nobody sane is doing that. It doesn't work unless you broaden the scope of "parallel" to the ridiculous level that suddenly justifies making the same comparison with hundreds of other people - that was the entire point of the earlier post.

"Seizing" of power? He used the same political process of every other President that came before him. How come it's suddenly "seizing" power when it's Trump? Did he set fire to Congress and blame a Dutchman with learning disabilities (if you'll pardon the tautology)? Did he send people out to murder members of his own party to consolidate power?

"People surrounding him"? Instead of throwing out some vague allusion to "something" and hoping other people will fill in the blanks, would you like to explain that statement? How are Trump's people a closer "parallel" to Hitler's entourage than, say, Obama's team? Or Bill Clinton's team?

What you are saying is simply disconnected from sense. It's a bit of vague hand waving in the hope that people will accept without listening too closely to what you are actually saying. I'm happy to listen to the point you want to make, I just haven't heard you make it in any meaningful way yet.

How is this realistically a parallel?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheProphetMark

You are serious with this? Hitler's skandhas could never create a Trump.. their characters are far too different.

What a ridiculous suggestion.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I had one vote, and now I have one president. Simple enough.

But I owe my loved ones as much security as possible. I will watch every leader of this nation like a hawk, because power seekers are power hungry and I have no intention of being prey, for any, repeat, any brand.

For 70 years Hitler has been the poster boy for malevolent leadership. Every president should be compared to him. His only worth in civilized history is as a yardstick for evil governance.

We must not become complacent when madmen are a dime a dozen worldwide. It is with regret that I am compelled to do this sort of distasteful thing, but compare I will. I wouldn't build even a chickencoop without using a tape measure .

If Trump is another type of Hitler, I want to notice it ASAP. And so far, Trump barely rates a near " wannabe " in my book. ( Hillery the Jackel would have been closer if she wasn't such a pawn. )

We have history; use it. Anyone in this age who just goes on faith in a mere mortal is likely to wake up dead.

Yes, I'm an independent.

VF
edit on 2-2-2017 by VenatiusFortunatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
To anyone that has seriously studied Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, these sort of thoughts really do show the ignorance in our western educational system.

Trump's rise to power is nothing like Hitlers.
Trump's psychological profile is nothing like Hitlers.
The current state of the United States is nothing like the state of Germany when Hitler came to power.
The state of American culture and German culture has never been, and probably never will be the same.
The idealism of conservative Americans has never really been about collectivism. The idealism of the Nazi party was from the get go.

I could go on and on and on.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
To anyone that has seriously studied Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, these sort of thoughts really do show the ignorance in our western educational system.

Trump's rise to power is nothing like Hitlers.
Trump's psychological profile is nothing like Hitlers.
The current state of the United States is nothing like the state of Germany when Hitler came to power.
The state of American culture and German culture has never been, and probably never will be the same.
The idealism of conservative Americans has never really been about collectivism. The idealism of the Nazi party was from the get go.

I could go on and on and on.


I was approaching the subject more from the idea of a single party system becoming more and more willing to entertain the idea of draconian laws, which can build into a virtial dictatorship, no matter the benevolence of original intent.

As well,the willingness of leadership to the bending of our Constitutional laws and intents. All presidents push the limits of thier power. Most centrist are aware that a healthy multi-party system is essential to our nation.

Sio far, we seem to be about the level of FDR. And that had WWll going on.
Time tells all tales.

VF


(post by ChelseaHubble removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)


top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join