Holy shit. There's Holocaust Denialism, but I've never seen someone actually blame the Holocaust on the Jews. "They stabbed Germans in the back." Fucking wow.

(June 20, 2019 at 12:11 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(June 20, 2019 at 11:36 am)Drich Wrote: there may be 1000 people pictured here sport..

Trump had 20,000 inside, and another 15,000 outside where they set up monitors and had a live band. they shut down 1/2 a city for almost a 24 hour period people waited DAYS in line to get in...

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Not only that you forgot in the DNC popular vote does not count for anything. what do I men? each voting district had a delegate who is supposed to vote with the majority of how the registered democratic public votes, but they do not have to (meaning they can be paid or bullied to vote for clinton when sanders is the popular vote.) then don't forget there are superdelegates who's vote is counted 10:1 over the normal deligates. meaning if all of the nations superdelegates get together and vote for clinton and all of the normal deligates (who represent the voting public for the democrats) voted for sanders the superdelegate votes count for more and clinton get the DNC nomination and sanders goes home. Just like he did in 2016...

Your vote in the primary means nothing. The deep state/those who control the superdelegates (the big campaign contributors to the DNC) control who the democratic nominee is.

So in the end it does not matter who votes for sanders AOC or biden. if the DNC says biden then it will be biden who wins the primaries.

You guys are already loosing your freedoms in democratic specific functions like the primaries, which is fine by me, but don't look to spread this corruption and freedom thievery over the rest of the country!

Fine words from someone whose preferred candidate got about 3 million votes less than the actual winner and still won the Presidency because the Electoral College is jacked. And also, there actually are photos that better show the scope of the Bernie crowd. Unfortuately, it's not letting me post the actual image:



Here's a link to it if you want to actually see it. Over 15,000 people. And there was a comparable turnout at Navy Pier the next day:

[imgfit]https://i.redd.it

SUPER DELEGATES MEANS YOUR VOTES IN THE PRIMARIES DO NOT COUNT. These crowds mean nothing because their votes will never exceed the vote of the super delegates!

APPLES AND ORANGES Because our crowds our votes count and yours does not!!!!
https://medium.com/the-short-version/why...4ba0cb5ba1

---

(June 20, 2019 at 12:25 pm)Shell B Wrote: Holy shit. There's Holocaust Denialism, but I've never seen someone actually blame the Holocaust on the Jews. "They stabbed Germans in the back." Fucking wow.

WFT are you talking about?

I gave you the reason GERMANS USED TO PUT JEWS IN CAMPS. I quoted Adolf Hitler showing this was his message to his people... This is how they justified what they did to one another!!!.

are you so far up your ass trying to make me a bad guy you do not see the difference between my words and the quotations and citation marked words of adolf hitler?

I hate the superdelegate system, too. It's basically the Electoral College system, but even worse (but on a thankfully smaller scale). Good thing they've finally decided to curtail the power of the superdelegates, rendering them useless.

And here's the source for the 25 Points. Minus my annotations, of course.

And here's a description of Socialism, since you clearly have no idea what socialism even means. The rise of the USSR might be a fitting narrative for your idea, since they at least tried to put some form of socialism into practice (despite trying to force an ideology built with industrialism in mind on an agrarian society) before they got so obsessed with killing counter-revolutionaries that Stalin became damn near inevitable, but Nazism simply isn't.

No, I'm not trying to make you seem like a bad guy. You didn't quote Hitler. You were giving your narrative of the events and used the words stabbed in the back. You may have quoted him elsewhere, but those words were not a quote, so I interpreted it to mean you think the Jews stabbed the Germans in the back. If you don't feel like that was the catalyst, I misunderstood you.

(June 20, 2019 at 12:46 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, I'm not trying to make you seem like a bad guy. You didn't quote Hitler. You were giving your narrative of the events and used the words stabbed in the back. You may have quoted him elsewhere, but those words were not a quote, so I interpreted it to mean you think the Jews stabbed the Germans in the back. If you don't feel like that was the catalyst, I misunderstood you.

not only did I quote hitleri change the font and put a quote tag around it:

The Great war and German Defeat -- the rise of Nazism:
Their defeat in World War I gravely accelerated anti-Semitism among the German people. Many German writers and public figures (encouraged by the German Army General staff) explained the defeat with the "stab in the back" argument -- that Jews and communists had undermined morale at home when the army was still winning the fight in the field. This was of course far from the truth, for the German army was collapsing by November 1918 and much of the navy was already in mutiny. But thousands of Germans, unwilling to believe that defeat was inevitable after 1917, accepted the argument.
No person embraced the stab-in-the-back thesis with more enthusiasm than Adolf Hitler.
"...if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

Quote: Wrote:Adolf Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag, January 30, 1939.

http://web.mnstate.edu/shoptaug/AntiFrames.htm

Then even left a link to the page where i got the quote

---

the sabbed in the back was the platform hitler used to described what they jews did to them according to the minnasots state university paper i direct quoted from in different font and provided a link to!

(June 19, 2019 at 1:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 19, 2019 at 1:14 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I see now. You don't know what socialism is.

Tis a common American failing.

(June 19, 2019 at 1:43 pm)Drich Wrote: then please educate me sport.. show me where my failing is when I said russia was communist and hitler was the fuhrer of the national socialist of germany..

Remember you asked for it.

The NAZI party although having socialist as part of its name was as socialist as the Queen Latifa is royal.
Because names mean less than deeds.

Lets look at the NAZI party and its actions. One of the main things it did was centralize power in one individual.

The first proper socialists arose as part of the French revolution.

This was where modern terms began by the seating arrangements in the parliament, the people who supported concentration of power in elites on the right and people advocating for a more equal society sitting on the left. Hence the terms left and right wing today.

Now obviously the idea of a fairer society is an attractive one and one that has been usurped a few times to install right regimes.
Stalinist Russia and China are examples and the ones trotted out the most by people who don't understand the complexities.

(June 19, 2019 at 1:43 pm)Drich Wrote: because one of you douche bags is using the word socialism and communism interchangeable as if he did not know the difference or there was a difference...yet here you chime in like some loose who does not understand the point of the quote you are responding to was to show a difference between communism and socialism...

What is a "loose who"

(June 19, 2019 at 1:43 pm)Drich Wrote: So again dummy show me educate me make me out to be a fool thinking that socialism is not communism and that 60 million people did not die between germany and the USSR during WWII because on side where communist and the other where socialist!

The NAZIs were not socialists. They were an extreme right wing party that put socialist in the name to appeal to morons who wouldn't know the difference. Socialism is by definition a left wing stance NAZISM and fascism are by definition a right wing stance

Again you do not know what socialism is.

But then you do seem to be American and they have gone out of their way to lie to you.

I am writing in the socialist UK.

This thread has reached the level of absurdity any thread with Drich involved inevitably leads to.

#1 Socialism, communism and nazism
Anyone who knows anything about political ideology knows that socialism is part of the Communist ideology. Socialism is a state of society prior to communism. Now, from a nazi perspective coomunism was originated and controlled by the jews, the scape goats of nazi ideology. No sane nazi would embrace socialism, the intellectual spawn of the evil jews.
What the nazis tried to offer is some common benefits for their citizens, benefits that are in accordance with what every person with at least some degree of empathy would embrace. Having (good) ideas that are also embraced by socialists doesnt make you one. It also doenst make you a decent person (the nazis werent, with or without constructing the autobahn) It only shows that you may have empathy, like socialists. In case of the nazis it was less empathy but part of the social darwinism they were committed to.


#2

Quote:don't buy into the new narrative.

There was a reason national socialist workers party took hold in germany, you need not look any further than the promises of free education, free health care a free home and car for every family

This is, by all standards utterly absurd. Free healthcare? Free home? Free car? Are you kidding? The car you are most probably talking about is the VW Käfer, originally started as a KdF Design, but stopped during the war.
It wasnt intended to be free but affordable, like the Volksempfänger. If you consider offering an affordable car to Joe Average to be socialist, then by all means Henry Ford was a socialist. 
Free healthcare? Nope, just affordable, public health care. A system we still have and which works to some extend. Public healthcare, a system that was introduced by Bismarck in the late 19th century. Was Bismarck a socialist? Do you have a clue what Bismarcks relation to socialism/socialists was?

I am writing in socialist Germany btw.

(June 20, 2019 at 1:37 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(June 19, 2019 at 1:43 pm)Drich Wrote: Remember you asked for it.

The NAZI party although having socialist as part of its name was as socialist as the Queen Latifa is royal.
Because names mean less than deeds.

Lets look at the NAZI party and its actions. One of the main things it did was centralize power in one individual.

The first proper socialists arose as part of the French revolution.

This was where modern terms began by the seating arrangements in the parliament, the people who supported concentration of power in elites on the right and people advocating for a more equal society sitting on the left. Hence the terms left and right wing today.

Now obviously the idea of a fairer society is an attractive one and one that has been usurped a few times to install right regimes.
Stalinist Russia and China are examples and the ones trotted out the most by people who don't understand the complexities.

(June 19, 2019 at 1:43 pm)Drich Wrote: because one of you douche bags is using the word socialism and communism interchangeable as if he did not know the difference or there was a difference...yet here you chime in like some loose who does not understand the point of the quote you are responding to was to show a difference between communism and socialism...

What is a "loose who"

looseR who...

Quote:

(June 19, 2019 at 1:43 pm)Drich Wrote: So again dummy show me educate me make me out to be a fool thinking that socialism is not communism and that 60 million people did not die between germany and the USSR during WWII because on side where communist and the other where socialist!

The NAZIs were not socialists. They were an extreme right wing party that put socialist in the name to appeal to morons who wouldn't know the difference. Socialism is by definition a left wing stance NAZISM and fascism are by definition a right wing stance

Again you do not know what socialism is.

But then you do seem to be American and they have gone out of their way to lie to you.

I am writing in the socialist UK.

no you are writing from the uk version of socialism and nazism is not the same thing..

Here's what former nazi state of austria has to formally say as to why nazism IS indeed socialism:
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was...talitarian

The Mises institute is the officially sanctioned by the government of austria to educate people about the austrian economy.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-s...y/10214302

The Above is a historical look at all of the the reason we fought against socialism in WWII and why the nazi brand of socialism was the picture of it.


So let's review, I have a form nazi state's official position that nazism was socialism and I have recorded history detailed from that time that nazism was indeed socialism, and you have your nut-huh because i live in a socialist version of the uk...

look dummy, not all brands of socialism seek to do things the same way. nor to they have the same solutions when the socalism begins to fail and the leadership realise it is unsustainable.

Germany sought to maintain state power by stealing money and resources from surrounding nations and eventually the world! You guys borrow from china and pretend greece is not leading the EU to total finical ruin. lefties would never invade a neighbor and steal their resources to maintain their failed government... however nazi would does not make them any less or you any more of a socialist. As socialism is not about success but how you deal with it's ultimate collapse... do you take o the world or let your people starve and blame others.. anywhere on that spectrum you land you are still a socialist as again it is a practice in economic failure not a political correctness contest..

No, what Really tipped things in their favour was their opposition to the Young Plan, which would have lowered their WW1 debt at the expense of taking more time to pay it. Which sounds a lot like the alarmism the Tea Party had over the prospect of Obama putting Obamaca into action.

(June 20, 2019 at 2:44 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: No, what Really tipped things in their favour was their opposition to the Young Plan, which would have lowered their WW1 debt at the expense of taking more time to pay it. Which sounds a lot like the alarmism the Tea Party had over the prospect of Obama putting Obamaca into action.

there is a major difference between obama care and the debt owed by germany via the treaty of versailles... The cost of the reperations for WWI germany owed was a fixed price.

Obama care in one term doubbled the national debt and the cost where only going up... do you understand the term doubled the national debt? it means to spend all of the money every administration before him from washington to bush 2 in a 4 year period... What sane person would allow this? what sane person would allow the next administration to continue down this same path!