ADVERTISEMENT

Are we a unified Reich in our country

  • Like
Reactions: swman and Ohio Guy
They were referencing the first and second reichs, not the third. 😜
Guessing we're supposed to know this is sarcasm, even though you left off the DWS...

But is Maga world claiming that Bismark and the Kaiser weren't at least autocrats, if not actual dictators.? No wonder they're enthralled with Vlad...
 
What a hell of an article. My balls are sore.

Meanwhile in Portland Oregon. Did those Antifa f*ckers finally wake up?


Even liberals realize that progressives are a disaster. Hopefully last 4 years has ended the progressive idiocy.
 
Guessing we're supposed to know this is sarcasm, even though you left off the DWS...

But is Maga world claiming that Bismark and the Kaiser weren't at least autocrats, if not actual dictators.? No wonder they're enthralled with Vlad...
Well I did leave a face winking and sticking its tongue out....

You would have to ask someone in "MAGA world" what their thoughts are. I kind of find all of you to be getting tedious at this point.
 
Even liberals realize that progressives are a disaster. Hopefully last 4 years has ended the progressive idiocy.
Amen, and of all places deep in the heart of woke. I saw that and thought it was spam. It appears the guy will probably win. Shocker
 
Well I did leave a face winking and sticking its tongue out....

You would have to ask someone in "MAGA world" what their thoughts are. I kind of find all of you to be getting tedious at this point.
Because it is the pointing out that is the problem rather than trump saying it?

Lmao
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ulrey
Or nah? https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/video/trump-unified-reich-nazi-germany-truth-social-digvid Tell me again how disgusting Biden is? Every day there is stuff like this. Every single day. We just expect it so much from Trump no one even talks about it.
They were referencing the first and second reichs, not the third. 😜

more like garden-variety incompetence on the part of trump's staff - per usual
Reich is a neutral word. This is a dumb thread started by a poster who runs on feelings quoting a reporter who mines news for an anti-trump spin who works on a news platform whose mission statement is to promote anxiety and anger about Trump.
 
Reich is a neutral word. This is a dumb thread started by a poster who runs on feelings quoting a reporter who mines news for an anti-trump spin who works on a news platform whose mission statement is to promote anxiety and anger about Trump.
You know it's interesting that, shortly after this supposedly innocuous video was posted, a Trump campaign spokeswoman released a statement that Trump wasn't responsible for the post but rather it was done by a misguided staffer, and the post was taken down shortly thereafter.

For an old guy you're really limber. You're able to twist yourself into a pretzel defending and/or making excuses for this shit.
 
You know it's interesting that, shortly after this supposedly innocuous video was posted, a Trump campaign spokeswoman released a statement that Trump wasn't responsible for the post but rather it was done by a misguided staffer, and the post was taken down shortly thereafter.

For an old guy you're really limber. You're able to twist yourself into a pretzel defending and/or making excuses for this shit.
Those who twist themselves into anti-trump pretzels think they are straight and the rest of the world is twisted.
 
sure,

"reich" doesn't mean anything,
"poisoning the blood of our country" doesn't mean anything
"vermin" doesn't mean anything

What's next,
"America uber alles"?
"Arbeit macht frei"?
"Heil Trump"?

face it, words matter

unless you're in the cult, I guess
The swastika is an ancient symbol of prosperity, good fortune, peace, and harmony. It would not surprise me if Trump adopted it as the MAGA symbol, while others ignored the connotation in their fervor to defend him.
 
Nothing about the word is positive.

la438f6.jpeg


NOTHING
 
sure,

"reich" doesn't mean anything,
"poisoning the blood of our country" doesn't mean anything
"vermin" doesn't mean anything

What's next,
"America uber alles"?
"Arbeit macht frei"?
"Heil Trump"?

face it, words matter

unless you're in the cult, I guess
100%. Reich ain't neutral--only one country has ever referred itself as the "Reich" the Bizmark pre world war I (and through WWI). An overtly aggressive country was the root cause of WWI. The second of course needs no explainer--we know exactly what Reich means: 1933-1945 Germany.

If you are using that word at anytime in the 20th and 21st century, it means one thing. Why would an american use the term Reich--unless it was intentional. You wouldn't. The actual sentence said "“the creation of a unified Reich”. They doubled down the usage 3 times and actually stated “German industrial strength significantly increased after 1871, driven by the creation of a unified Reich.” That sentence of course is extremely coy and does not provide an end date--and for good reason inasmuch as Bizmark Reich failed miserably, and the Weimer republic was dog doo doo, with inflation running at over a million percent. There was no industry. No food either. Enter Hitler and his commerical works projects....

As for Trump's comments about "poisioning the blood of our country" (disucssing immigration), and referring to immigrants as vermin --these are two unmistakeable terms and phrases that you won't find anywhere other than Mein Kumph and Joseph Goebbels diary. Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw both have written magnificent books on this.

There is NO other reason to say these things unless you are making it known who you really are, then playing dumb about it....how many times would direct copying of nazi language must there before people realize this is a problem. These words and phrases are a clarion call (see what I did there @BradStevens :D) to incite.

The whataboutism in this thread is shocking.
 
Do you know what Österreich is?
It is the German phrase for the eastern realm-- Austria. And antiquated

I hope you aren't suggesting that when the video specially refers to GERMANY and mentions "Reich" that it means Austria.....

Find me an example of an American using the phrase "the Reich" and have it not be referencing 1933-1945 Germany.
 
It is the German phrase for the eastern realm-- Austria. And antiquated

I hope you aren't suggesting that when the video specially refers to GERMANY and mentions "Reich" that it means Austria.....

Find me an example of an American using the phrase "the Reich" and have it not be referencing 1933-1945 Germany.
I asked my German friend this morning what Reich means literally. He said “empire” and he didn’t believe it carries baggage to a German. The word isn’t used now because it is obsolete. He wasn’t aware of the issue Zeke raised.
 
100%. Reich ain't neutral--only one country has ever referred itself as the "Reich" the Bizmark pre world war I (and through WWI). An overtly aggressive country was the root cause of WWI. The second of course needs no explainer--we know exactly what Reich means: 1933-1945 Germany.

If you are using that word at anytime in the 20th and 21st century, it means one thing. Why would an american use the term Reich--unless it was intentional. You wouldn't. The actual sentence said "“the creation of a unified Reich”. They doubled down the usage 3 times and actually stated “German industrial strength significantly increased after 1871, driven by the creation of a unified Reich.” That sentence of course is extremely coy and does not provide an end date--and for good reason inasmuch as Bizmark Reich failed miserably, and the Weimer republic was dog doo doo, with inflation running at over a million percent. There was no industry. No food either. Enter Hitler and his commerical works projects....

As for Trump's comments about "poisioning the blood of our country" (disucssing immigration), and referring to immigrants as vermin --these are two unmistakeable terms and phrases that you won't find anywhere other than Mein Kumph and Joseph Goebbels diary. Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw both have written magnificent books on this.

There is NO other reason to say these things unless you are making it known who you really are, then playing dumb about it....how many times would direct copying of nazi language must there before people realize this is a problem. These words and phrases are a clarion call (see what I did there @BradStevens :D) to incite.

The whataboutism in this thread is shocking.
I don't get it. What is the Trump campaign intentionally inciting here? Is the notion that Trump actually thinks there are lot of Nazi votes to pick up out there? I've never met anyone personally that sympathized with the Nazi party.

Is the implication today's conservatives, populist MAGAs, etc. are secret Nazis and fascists? It seems too close to the playbook that Lukianoff broke down in the post in the chicken-and-egg thread:


Tactics in this “Just Kidding!” column of the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress include questions like:

  • Can the speaker be accused of being “phobic”? If you can be pegged as exhibiting any kind of “ism,” or having any kind of “phobia,” then your point of view doesn’t matter.
  • Are they guilty by association? If you can connect the speaker to someone considered morally “beyond the pale,” then you can accuse them of being guilty by association. It’s essentially the Great Untruth of Ad Hominem by proxy.
  • Did the speaker lose their cool? We dub this the “don’t get angry” barricade, in which someone hastens their own demise by voicing frustration.
  • Did the speaker violate a “thought terminating cliché”? If you can be accused of things like “dog-whistling,” “punching down,” “being on the wrong side of history,” or “parroting right-wing talking points,” no further engagement is required.
  • Can you emotionally blackmail someone? When it seems like you’re starting to lose the argument, you can always fall back on emotional outbursts and claims of harm to prevent more discussion.

In general, with Trump, I think it better to chalk up a particular stupid action to incompetence and laziness (here from his staff for not vetting the tweet they retweeted--Christ, this is really a thing, isn't it?) rather than to some evil intent. I'll repeat for the millionth time: Trump isn't Hitler, doesn't want to be Hitler, and his policies aren't fascist.
 
I don't get it. What is the Trump campaign intentionally inciting here? Is the notion that Trump actually thinks there are lot of Nazi votes to pick up out there? I've never met anyone personally that sympathized with the Nazi party.

Is the implication today's conservatives, populist MAGAs, etc. are secret Nazis and fascists? It seems too close to the playbook that Lukianoff broke down in the post in the chicken-and-egg thread:


Tactics in this “Just Kidding!” column of the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress include questions like:

  • Can the speaker be accused of being “phobic”? If you can be pegged as exhibiting any kind of “ism,” or having any kind of “phobia,” then your point of view doesn’t matter.
  • Are they guilty by association? If you can connect the speaker to someone considered morally “beyond the pale,” then you can accuse them of being guilty by association. It’s essentially the Great Untruth of Ad Hominem by proxy.
  • Did the speaker lose their cool? We dub this the “don’t get angry” barricade, in which someone hastens their own demise by voicing frustration.
  • Did the speaker violate a “thought terminating cliché”? If you can be accused of things like “dog-whistling,” “punching down,” “being on the wrong side of history,” or “parroting right-wing talking points,” no further engagement is required.
  • Can you emotionally blackmail someone? When it seems like you’re starting to lose the argument, you can always fall back on emotional outbursts and claims of harm to prevent more discussion.

In general, with Trump, I think it better to chalk up a particular stupid action to incompetence and laziness (here from his staff for not vetting the tweet they retweeted--Christ, this is really a thing, isn't it?) rather than to some evil intent. I'll repeat for the millionth time: Trump isn't Hitler, doesn't want to be Hitler, and his policies aren't fascist.

I've been told that words matter, but it seems that only applies to some individuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Milton
I asked my German friend this morning what Reich means literally. He said “empire” and he didn’t believe it carries baggage to a German...He wasn’t aware of the issue Zeke raised.
But the Trump campaign was. It's why they took the ad down and claimed it was a "mistake".

You are making excuses for horrible people who aren't even making the same excuses for themselves.
 
I've been told that words matter, but it seems that only applies to some individuals.
They do matter. And all of Trump's ridiculous gaffes, etc. make him unsuitable to be President (or hold any public office, really), in my mind. I just don't think this retweet was done as a "dog whistle" to call out all the Nazis to his side. Just as I don't think the vast majority of idiots on college campuses chanting "from the river to the sea" really want to murder all Israelis or ethnically cleanse that land of all Jewish people.
 
I don't get it. What is the Trump campaign intentionally inciting here? Is the notion that Trump actually thinks there are lot of Nazi votes to pick up out there? I've never met anyone personally that sympathized with the Nazi party.

Is the implication today's conservatives, populist MAGAs, etc. are secret Nazis and fascists? It seems too close to the playbook that Lukianoff broke down in the post in the chicken-and-egg thread:


Tactics in this “Just Kidding!” column of the Perfect Rhetorical Fortress include questions like:

  • Can the speaker be accused of being “phobic”? If you can be pegged as exhibiting any kind of “ism,” or having any kind of “phobia,” then your point of view doesn’t matter.
  • Are they guilty by association? If you can connect the speaker to someone considered morally “beyond the pale,” then you can accuse them of being guilty by association. It’s essentially the Great Untruth of Ad Hominem by proxy.
  • Did the speaker lose their cool? We dub this the “don’t get angry” barricade, in which someone hastens their own demise by voicing frustration.
  • Did the speaker violate a “thought terminating cliché”? If you can be accused of things like “dog-whistling,” “punching down,” “being on the wrong side of history,” or “parroting right-wing talking points,” no further engagement is required.
  • Can you emotionally blackmail someone? When it seems like you’re starting to lose the argument, you can always fall back on emotional outbursts and claims of harm to prevent more discussion.

In general, with Trump, I think it better to chalk up a particular stupid action to incompetence and laziness (here from his staff for not vetting the tweet they retweeted--Christ, this is really a thing, isn't it?) rather than to some evil intent. I'll repeat for the millionth time: Trump isn't Hitler, doesn't want to be Hitler, and his policies aren't fascist.
I would offer two options. The first is not the one I accept, the dog whistle. The second is that the Trump campaign believes no press is bad press and this allows for the ever popular "the mean old lefties are picking on me".

As to @CO. Hoosier point that a German says Reich doesn't have the same meaning, that is possible. But I am not sure I have heard any German politician since 1945 use that term, which should be indicative of something. In addition, in late '22 there were 25 people arrested in a right-wing coup plot, they called themselves Reich citizens. At least to some in the German neo-nazi movement, the term has meaning.

 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT