|
|
|
|
|
|
by james-watson
3495 days ago
|
|
|
> Had the Germans fought a civil war in the 1930s instead of accepting their populist leader they and the rest of the world would have been better off. Oh, was there another populist leader the Germans should have rejected in the 1930s? Do enlighten me. >Wow you've got a Hitler fixation. I wasn't really talking about him [...] Projection at its finest. See above. "LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!!!" is the totality of your argument. Perhaps you should broaden your critical thinking landscape. |
|
|
> was there another populist leader the Germans should have rejected in the 1930s?
Pray tell, which politician do you think I'm comparing to Hitler?
I'm certainly referring to Hitler. I am German. He's the last one of those in my country? Are you appropriating my culture?
But I'm not saying either of the US presidential candidates are Hitler, literally or otherwise, or even very much like him.
Pay attention here... I'm only saying that "legally elected" is almost the least important thing about them. What's important is how they'll govern, not if they managed to win a badly run popularity contest.
I do agree with the OP that his friend was hoping for something silly - violence in the street to stop Trump. But, unless the OP had a line where he'd wish for such a thing, he's actually the naive one. There certainly are some examples, like the one I shared from my homeland, where it's worth almost any internal pain (even civil war) to stop the legally elected candidate from assuming power.