David Frum: Trump has turned GOP into party of Russia

[iu_a_att]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/trump-russia/493298/
Posted here because I think Trump (and perhaps many of his followers) are not just inspired by Putin's approach to leveraging Russian nationalism but seems to actively seek alliance with Putin in order to take power in the United States. For me this raises so many alarm bells I can't believe that Trump continues to receive support from so many people let alone to be an actual contender for the Presidency. I don't typically agree with David Frum on much but his conclusion that the totality of Trump's positions on Russia are not just "troubling" they are "sinister" seems, if anything, too restrained.

According to Frum:

"Over the course of his candidacy, Donald Trump has revealed a remarkably consistent attitude toward Russia—a subject he seems to have thought about almost more than any other in this campaign.

He has repeatedly and emphatically rejected criticism of Vladimir Putin’s methods of rule, including his murders of journalists.

He has called NATO obsolete because it is too focused on the threat from Russia. At his own convention, he told The New York Times he would not defend small NATO countries like Estonia against a Russian attack.

Trump’s convention team, largely indifferent to the work of the party-platform committee, acted decisively to strike pro-Ukraine language. Trump himself has urged decreased U.S. support for Ukraine as it resists Russian invasion.

And at this most recent press conference, he indicated openness to recognizing Russia’s conquest and annexation of Crimea—and expressed opposition to maintaining sanctions against Russia. That statement would have topped the news on any day except one in which a candidate for United States president openly invited foreign espionage against his political opponent.

For a candidate with few consistent views on anything, this adds up to a very clear picture. Joined with other evidence of Trump’s deep personal business obligations to people in the Putin ruling circle, and his campaign leadership’s long-standing involvement with the former pro-Putin authoritarian leader of Ukraine, the picture becomes even more troubling—even sinister."​

 

[iu_a_att]

Man bites dog. ...

Care to address Frum's point? Putin seems to be a growing inspiration for many on the right...for you too? Better to throw away our old allies in Nato to hop in bed with the Russia?

 

[iu_a_att]

here are some more articles drawing attention to the right wing's growing affection for Putin from the perspective of those who identify as conservatives:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-rights-putin-problem/
http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/22/vladimir-putin-is-no-ally-for-the-right
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/is_the_right_a_fan_of_putin.html

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Care to address Frum's point? Putin seems to be a growing inspiration for many on the right...for you too? Better to throw away our old allies in Nato to hop in bed with the Russia?

Graham and McCain already had posters of a shirtless Putin on the ceiling above their beds. They've had a thing for Vlady Pooh for a while.

 

[iu_a_att]

Graham and McCain already had posters of a shirtless Putin on the ceiling above their beds. They've had a thing for Vlady Pooh for a while.

What concerns me is the extent to which their endorsement of Putin translates into enthusiasm for an authoritarian government here.

 

[iuwclurker1]

What concerns me is the extent to which their endorsement of Putin translates into enthusiasm for an authoritarian government here.

What concerns me is that a large portion of our populace may have gone braindead. Trump's and his aids' obvious support for Putin ought to turn a #Landslide into a #LANDSLIDE. No patriot with at least one functioning neuron would pick Putin over Hillary.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

What concerns me is the extent to which their endorsement of Putin translates into enthusiasm for an authoritarian government here.

Trump said he would "end crime" if elected. He didn't specify, but about the only way to even attempt to end crime altogether is an authoritarian police state. I guess you could also deport everyone who doesn't conform.

 

[iu_a_att]

Too bad about the back and forth about whether Rbabbit is a good person or not. I would sure be interested in hearing the extent to which folks here would endorse Donald Trump's claim that "Putin is a better leader than Obama"..."Obama isn't a leader"...

It says something about what people like Trump think is leadership.
Eisenhower said this about leadership:

“You do not lead by hitting people over the head. That’s assault, not leadership.” … “Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”​

Trump and many others seem to confuse assault with leadership...which is itself a yyyyyuuuuuggggggeeeeee problem.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

@iu_a_att you are now reopen for business.

 

[RBabbitt]

Well, since all you have is your imagination, I'll let you stew in that . . . .

BTW, whatever happened to that job you were so happy to be pursuing, so's you could get out of the one you're in . . . .

Since you asked nicely, I'll tell you. You probably won't believe it. It went to a non-practicing attorney, who I happen to know and like. He has a wife and kids and one headed off to college and needed the job. I have a couple of other irons in the fire. See, I can be nice. I engage people the way they engage me. Usually.

I will apologize to iu@at&t for hijacking his thread and for the way I engaged him. All the hyperbolic celebratory crap being posted on here had me fired up.

Iu@at&t, I'll respond to your post tomorrow. I have to go to bed.

 

[iu_a_att]

QUOTE="RBabbitt, post: 1803568, member: 7122"]Since you asked nicely, I'll tell you. You probably won't believe it. It went to a non-practicing attorney, who I happen to know and like. He has a wife and kids and one headed off to college. I have a couple of other irons in the fire. See, I can be nice. I engage people the way they engage me. Usually.

I will apologize to iu@at&t for hijacking his thread and for the way I engaged him. All the hyperbolic celebratory crap being posted on here had me fired up.

Iu@at&t, I'll respond to your post tomorrow. I have to go to bed.[/QUOTE]
Sleep well and I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow. Till then be safe, serve and protect.

 

[Zizkov]

Donald Trump mentally ill? Fox News thinks so:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03...-trump-mentally-ill-obsessed-megyn-kelly.html

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

While I have nothing but disdain for Vladimir Putin, I think this is (a) pretty obvious hyperbole, (b) primarily motivated by establishment people freaking out about the prospect of a non-establishment POTUS...and the prospect of somebody who is not a conservative becoming the standard-bearer of the Republican Party.

Notice that Frum had no such concerns when (his former boss) Bush and Pooty-Poot had effusive things to say about each other back in the day, or when GWB explained how he knew Putin was a good man because he viewed his soul through the eyes. Nor did he seem to have any problem with Putin endorsing Bush in 2004.

I'd just reiterate that the GOP wouldn't be in this position if its elected leaders (and advisers like Frum) hadn't been so arrogant and dismissive of their voters. They only have themselves to blame for voters looking elsewhere -- and pieces like this one aren't going to help resolve the impasse.

 

[Rockfish1]

I think this is (a) pretty obvious hyperbole, (b) primarily motivated by establishment people freaking out about the prospect of a non-establishment POTUS...and the prospect of somebody who is not a conservative becoming the standard-bearer of the Republican Party.

Or perhaps it's people who have to hold their nose to vote for Trump discovering that they also have to close their eyes and cover their ears.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Or perhaps it's people who have to hold their nose to vote for Trump discovering that they also have to close their eyes and cover their ears.

So why -- for somebody like Frum, that is -- the difference between the reaction to Bush/Putin and Trump/Putin? Did Frum resign the Bush Administration in protest when Bush talked glowingly about Pooty-Poot? Not that I recall.

Or, how many of those saying that Trump is Putin's favored candidate had the same reaction when Putin actually declared his support of Bush? None of them -- none, anyway, who were Bush supporters in 2004.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Notice that Frum had no such concerns when (his former boss) Bush and Pooty-Poot had effusive things to say about each other back in the day, or when GWB explained how he knew Putin was a good man because he viewed his soul through the eyes. Nor did he seem to have any problem with Putin endorsing Bush in 2004.

Either you're implying that Frum's being inconsistent or maybe, just maybe, you're the one who should take notice of this difference and ponder a bit on why Frum changed. Or is your opinion of Frum so jaded that nothing he says has any value in your paradigm?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Donald Trump mentally ill? Fox News thinks so:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03...-trump-mentally-ill-obsessed-megyn-kelly.html

No no no...he's just trolling Fox News....the joke's on them, on you,...on all of us.

 

[iu_a_att]

While I have nothing but disdain for Vladimir Putin, I think this is (a) pretty obvious hyperbole, (b) primarily motivated by establishment people freaking out about the prospect of a non-establishment POTUS...and the prospect of somebody who is not a conservative becoming the standard-bearer of the Republican Party.....

What is it that you think is hyperbole: Trump's statement about the Baltic states; Trump's statement about the Crimea; Trump's unwillingness to hold up America as a beacon for human rights; Trump's unwillingness to criticize Putin's murder of journalists; Trump's announcement at the convention that "I alone can fix the system"?

Trump presents two critical problems. First his strategic position internationally vis Russia would totally undermine a regime that whatever other faults have helped keep Europe peaceful and free. Second, he shows no respect for our political institutions and norms that allow us to govern ourselves. Only an autocrat could, alone, fix our system. An autocrat in the spirit of Putin, Sadam and, now, Erdogen in Turkey. The second problem is truly existential.

 

[iuwclurker1]

First his strategic position internationally vis Russia would totally undermine a regime that whatever other faults have helped keep Europe peaceful and free.

I'd take that one step farther. I think there's no doubt that Putin would invade any number of ex-Soviet satellite states now in NATO, if it didn't mean automatic war with the US. I'm not even sure he'd hold back if it only meant automatic war with the EU, because we all know the Europeans are wimps. They can't go to war with him anyway. They need his oil and gas.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Either you're implying that Frum's being inconsistent or maybe, just maybe, you're the one who should take notice of this difference and ponder a bit on why Frum changed. Or is your opinion of Frum so jaded that nothing he says has any value in your paradigm?

I'm not merely implying that Frum's being inconsistent. I'm explicitly stating it.

He had no problem at all with the cozy relationship between his former boss and Putin. Or, if he did, he didn't say -- much less do -- anything about it.

I have pondered why he changed -- and described above my opinion on what explains it.

 

[Sope Creek]

I'm not a lawyer hater at all. I'm very friendly with several and have two among my closest friends. I was in one of their weddings. I just have an aversion to assholes.

Since you asked nicely, I'll tell you. You probably won't believe it. It went to a non-practicing attorney, who I happen to know and like. He has a wife and kids and one headed off to college and needed the job. I have a couple of other irons in the fire. See, I can be nice. I engage people the way they engage me. Usually.

I will apologize to iu@at&t for hijacking his thread and for the way I engaged him. All the hyperbolic celebratory crap being posted on here had me fired up.

Iu@at&t, I'll respond to your post tomorrow. I have to go to bed.

Sleep good, RB, and thanks for the update. Good luck with those irons in the fire . . . .

BTW, what I look for most in every post is whether or not the poster is posting with a measure of good will . . . if I find it's completely lacking, that's when I come after folks. If you look at your post I initially took this thread off the rails for, you'll see that it had no semblance of good will in it. That's what gets my ire up . . .

. . . I won't pull any political punches in the political discussion, but I will try to post with a measure of good will in response to posts that I disagree with . . . while trying to eviscerate the political argument.

That's what I'm trying to do . . . I fall short sometimes, but as Kierkegaard said, I'm still becoming . . . .

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What is it that you think is hyperbole: Trump's statement about the Baltic states; Trump's statement about the Crimea; Trump's unwillingness to hold up America as a beacon for human rights; Trump's unwillingness to criticize Putin's murder of journalists; Trump's announcement at the convention that "I alone can fix the system"?

Trump presents two critical problems. First his strategic position internationally vis Russia would totally undermine a regime that whatever other faults have helped keep Europe peaceful and free. Second, he shows no respect for our political institutions and norms that allow us to govern ourselves. Only an autocrat could, alone, fix our system. An autocrat in the spirit of Putin, Sadam and, now, Erdogen in Turkey. The second problem is truly existential.

First, I don't take much of what he says all that seriously. Second, our political system leaves no room for autocrats.

Obama tried to end-run Congress on immigration since they wouldn't do what he wanted. Look how that ended. There was no way on earth the courts were going to let that stand....for him or any other president.

So how is this existential? Did Obama's attempt to circumvent Congress end in the destruction of America. Or did it end with a document produced by a court of law?

 

[iu_a_att]

What is really interesting is that, at least according to Paul Ryan, the big mistake of the Obama administration was trying to "reset" relations with Putin's Russia back in 2010. Ryan approvingly cites Boehner

“Within Russia, control is the order of the day, with key industries nationalized, the independent media repressed, and the loyal opposition beaten and jailed. Russia uses natural resources as a political weapon. And it plays ball with unstable and dangerous regimes. …

“We should do more to compel the Kremlin to curtail its relationship with Iran, particularly related to its nuclear program and missile technology. …

“The Kremlin is also exploiting its growing energy monopoly – turning on and off the spigot in the Ukraine and Belarus, and increasing Europe’s energy dependence. …

“Instead of downplaying Russia’s disregard for democratic values and human rights, we should call them on it. Publicly, forcefully, frequently. The United States should insist Russia ‘reset’ its own policies.”

What Trump is proposing goes way beyond Obama's (largely failed) reset and amounts to capitulation.

 

[Rockfish1]

What is it that you think is hyperbole: Trump's statement about the Baltic states; Trump's statement about the Crimea; Trump's unwillingness to hold up America as a beacon for human rights; Trump's unwillingness to criticize Putin's murder of journalists; Trump's announcement at the convention that "I alone can fix the system"?

Trump presents two critical problems. First his strategic position internationally vis Russia would totally undermine a regime that whatever other faults have helped keep Europe peaceful and free. Second, he shows no respect for our political institutions and norms that allow us to govern ourselves. Only an autocrat could, alone, fix our system. An autocrat in the spirit of Putin, Sadam and, now, Erdogen in Turkey. The second problem is truly existential.

That's right. It's not just the public bromance between Trump and Putin. It's all the stuff you mention, plus Team Trump watering down the Ukraine plank in the Republican platform, plus Trump's financial reliance on Russian oligarchs, plus Trump asking Putin to help throw the election to him. This would have the Republican noise machine cranked to Full Wurlitzer, but since it's their guy, they trivialize it. So is cognitive dissonance resolved.

 

[iu_a_att]

First, I don't take much of what he says all that seriously. Second, our political system leaves no room for autocrats.

Obama tried to end-run Congress on immigration since they wouldn't do what he wanted. Look how that ended. There was no way on earth the courts were going to let that stand....for him or any other president.

So how is this existential? Did Obama's attempt to circumvent Congress end in the destruction of America. Or did it end with a document produced by a court of law?

Ultimately this depends upon the willingness of the President to be constrained by the courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
It is a short step to a constitutional crisis...

 

[IU1]

That's right. It's not just the public bromance between Trump and Putin. It's all the stuff you mention, plus Team Trump watering down the Ukraine plank in the Republican platform, plus Trump's financial reliance on Russian oligarchs, plus Trump asking Putin to help throw the election to him. This would have the Republican noise machine cranked to Full Wurlitzer, but since it's their guy, they trivialize it. So is cognitive dissonance resolved.

Hillary sold uranium mining rights to Russia. Speaking of cognitive dissonance.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Hillary sold uranium mining rights to Russia. Speaking of cognitive dissonance.

I see someone is still citing Clinton Cash. Have fun with that. Anyone who doesn't watch Fox, listen to Limbaugh, or read Breitbart/Drudge knows the author is an imbecile who was forced to make redactions while the book was temporarily pulled by the publisher.

 

[iu_a_att]

Hillary sold uranium mining rights to Russia. Speaking of cognitive dissonance.

Do you mean this? There is no evidence presented that Hillary had anything to do with the sale.

"The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president."
​

Presumably if the Clinton's were in the pocket of Putin the Russians wouldn't be trying to undermine her candidacy.

Of course you dodge the concerns about Trump raised in this thread. Republicans have, until Trump, taken a hard line on Putin. They opposed the "reset" Obama (and Clinton) tried at the beginning of his administration. Whatever implications the Uranium One deal has for national security (which appears to be very little) they pale in comparison to undermining NATO and ceding the Baltics and Crimea to the Russians. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Ultimately this depends upon the willingness of the President to be constrained by the courts.

Well, there's always impeachment.

You're certainly right that some presidents aren't very willing to be constrained by courts. But people are sometimes pretty selective in just how egregious they consider such presidential behavior to be.

 

[iu_a_att]

Well, there's always impeachment.

You're certainly right that some presidents aren't very willing to be constrained by courts. But people are sometimes pretty selective in just how egregious they consider such presidential behavior to be.

In the current polarized political environment I don't think successful impeachment of a President is likely. Do you? Indeed, you only strengthen the case that at the end of the day we must rely on willingness of the President to exercise self-restraint. In Trump I see no evidence of any ability to self-restrain nor do I see any awareness or concern about the implications of violating long respected norms.

 

[iu_a_att]

I see someone is still citing Clinton Cash. Have fun with that. Anyone who doesn't watch Fox, listen to Limbaugh, or read Breitbart/Drudge knows the author is an imbecile who was forced to make redactions while the book was temporarily pulled by the publisher.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/
here is a detailed discussion of the case from factcheck.org

 

[terry2016]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/trump-russia/493298/
Posted here because I think Trump (and perhaps many of his followers) are not just inspired by Putin's approach to leveraging Russian nationalism but seems to actively seek alliance with Putin in order to take power in the United States. For me this raises so many alarm bells I can't believe that Trump continues to receive support from so many people let alone to be an actual contender for the Presidency. I don't typically agree with David Frum on much but his conclusion that the totality of Trump's positions on Russia are not just "troubling" they are "sinister" seems, if anything, too restrained.

According to Frum:

"Over the course of his candidacy, Donald Trump has revealed a remarkably consistent attitude toward Russia—a subject he seems to have thought about almost more than any other in this campaign.

He has repeatedly and emphatically rejected criticism of Vladimir Putin’s methods of rule, including his murders of journalists.

He has called NATO obsolete because it is too focused on the threat from Russia. At his own convention, he told The New York Times he would not defend small NATO countries like Estonia against a Russian attack.

Trump’s convention team, largely indifferent to the work of the party-platform committee, acted decisively to strike pro-Ukraine language. Trump himself has urged decreased U.S. support for Ukraine as it resists Russian invasion.

And at this most recent press conference, he indicated openness to recognizing Russia’s conquest and annexation of Crimea—and expressed opposition to maintaining sanctions against Russia. That statement would have topped the news on any day except one in which a candidate for United States president openly invited foreign espionage against his political opponent.

For a candidate with few consistent views on anything, this adds up to a very clear picture. Joined with other evidence of Trump’s deep personal business obligations to people in the Putin ruling circle, and his campaign leadership’s long-standing involvement with the former pro-Putin authoritarian leader of Ukraine, the picture becomes even more troubling—even sinister."​

If you believe all of this stuff, you have been brain washed by the media and left wing of the democratic party. Trump has not condoned Putin in any shape or form. He is obviously making fun of the Obama administration and Hillary when she was a weak Secretary of State. It has already been established that Hillary lies without batting an eye! Who knows how many e-mails were destroyed prior to saving a few in her private server.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If you believe all of this stuff, you have been brain washed by the media and left wing of the democratic party. Trump has not condoned Putin in any shape or form. He is obviously making fun of the Obama administration and Hillary when she was a weak Secretary of State. It has already been established that Hillary lies without batting an eye! Who knows how many e-mails were destroyed prior to saving a few in her private server.

LOL.

 

[iu_a_att]

Hadn't seen that Max Boot is endorsing Hillary. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/max-boot-anti-trump-foreign-policy

"
A senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Boot has advised Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mitt Romney on foreign policy. He's written glowing op-eds about American imperialism, long advocated for military intervention in Syria and Libya, and once wrote the U.S. needed to make a “long-term commitment in Iraq – for 100 years if need be.”

But when Trump launched his candidacy by calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and drug dealers and, shortly after, attacked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his years spent as a prisoner of war, Boot, a former foreign policy adviser to McCain, said he “hit the roof."

“I’ve been alarmed and horrified ever since. His rhetoric has gotten even more deranged over the past year,” Boot wrote.

He first described Trump as a “fascist” on Twitter last November and came under fire from fellow conservatives for telling the New York Times in March he would “sooner vote for Josef Stalin” than Trump. Since then Trump’s rhetoric has continued to pitch upward, with the GOP nominee this week “inviting a Russian cyber attack,” as Boot put it."​

 

[cosmickid]

Hadn't seen that Max Boot is endorsing Hillary. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/max-boot-anti-trump-foreign-policy

"
A senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Boot has advised Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mitt Romney on foreign policy. He's written glowing op-eds about American imperialism, long advocated for military intervention in Syria and Libya, and once wrote the U.S. needed to make a “long-term commitment in Iraq – for 100 years if need be.”

But when Trump launched his candidacy by calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and drug dealers and, shortly after, attacked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his years spent as a prisoner of war, Boot, a former foreign policy adviser to McCain, said he “hit the roof."

“I’ve been alarmed and horrified ever since. His rhetoric has gotten even more deranged over the past year,” Boot wrote.

He first described Trump as a “fascist” on Twitter last November and came under fire from fellow conservatives for telling the New York Times in March he would “sooner vote for Josef Stalin” than Trump. Since then Trump’s rhetoric has continued to pitch upward, with the GOP nominee this week “inviting a Russian cyber attack,” as Boot put it."​

Wonder where Max got the crazy idea that Trump advocates elements of Fascist thought?...

"The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time.

The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.

1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.

2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.

4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German National.

5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.

6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.

9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.

20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.

23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;

b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;

c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.

Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.

The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points."

Munich, Germany

February 24, 1920.

Sources: Das Programm der NSDAP ("The Program of the National-Socialist German Workers' Party"); Yad Vashem

BACK TO TOP

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

...

Wonder where Max got the crazy idea that Trump advocates elements of Fascist thought?...

"The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time.

The leadership rejects the establishment of new aims after those set out in the Program have been achieved, for the sole purpose of making it possible for the Party to continue to exist as the result of the artificially stimulated dissatisfaction of the masses.

1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.

2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.

3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.

4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German National.

5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.

6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.

9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.

20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army.

23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;

b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;

c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.

Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.

The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points."

Munich, Germany

February 24, 1920.

Sources: Das Programm der NSDAP ("The Program of the National-Socialist German Workers' Party"); Yad Vashem

BACK TO TOP

Did you actually read that? More of that is closer to the liberal Democratic agenda than the Republicans, but the whole idea that either party is anything like the German NAZI party is ridiculous. As should be clear by now to everyone Trump is horrible, but even his agenda, though I think it's impossible to determine what it us, hardly fits that agenda.

Comparisons like yours are strained and unhelpful.

 

[iu_a_att]

...

Did you actually read that? More of that is closer to the liberal Democratic agenda than the Republicans, but the whole idea that either party is anything like the German NAZI party is ridiculous. As should be clear by now to everyone Trump is horrible, but even his agenda, though I think it's impossible to determine what it us, hardly fits that agenda.

Comparisons like yours are strained and unhelpful.

I agree. But, if you have the chance, I would like to hear your view on the direction Trump is heading vis a vis Russia as per the thread.

 

[Bill4411]

It will be interesting to see how far free speech is permitted if Trump is our new President. Anyone as thin skinned as Trump is going to do everything he can to suppress criticism. The Water Cooler may be a thing of the past in a few years that we can't even talk about, as you know only Donald knows what is best for us.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Maybe the best argument defending Trump is that he's clueless about foreign policy and international relations and so he's unlikely to have much to do with Putin, other than via Twitter.

 

[twenty02]

So why -- for somebody like Frum, that is -- the difference between the reaction to Bush/Putin and Trump/Putin? Did Frum resign the Bush Administration in protest when Bush talked glowingly about Pooty-Poot? Not that I recall.

Or, how many of those saying that Trump is Putin's favored candidate had the same reaction when Putin actually declared his support of Bush? None of them -- none, anyway, who were Bush supporters in 2004.

Please point to me when W ever suggested abandoning NATO allies. Don't recall W ever saying anything positive about Putin, but that's beyond the point. At that point in history, Putin wasn't exactly a known actor, his motives were given the benefit of the doubt as Russia was in a period of transitioning and opening up. That's all gone now, we all clearly see what an authoritarian Putin is, and we see that Trump admires it.