trump announces his bid for reelection!

[Deesse23]

At work.

Uhm...... yeah while the Nazi's had the word 'Socialist' in their title they were Fascists like Musolini in Italy and Franco in Spain at the time.

While there are certainly elements of socialism in communism....... they have some fundamental differences.

Like the whole "Dictator at the top gets to tell every one what to do. Or else." kind of thing Communism and Fascism had going on.

Cheers.

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 and heavy taxes for the rich and heavy industry to pay for it all.. not to mention the public works the government used bring it self out of a deep finical depression, people voted for socialism and yes over time it turned into a fascist regime because pure socialist views can not sustain itself. history bears this out time and again.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S...st_Program

#1 People voted for socialism
The last free election in November 1932 resulted in 33% for NSDAP, losing 4% compared to the previous election

#2 National socialist program: 14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
Too bad actually the opposite happened: Trickle down economy with the regime feeding heavy industry with state funded re-armament. In effect Krupp, Thyssen and Quandt made fortunes 1933-45. Hitler didnt take money from Krupp, he didnt call him to Berlin to dictate whatever to him, he paid him visit in his villa Hügel, a favour not even Chamberlain experienced whom he made take his first flight ever to the most possible remote part of germany. In the pic below Hitler does not seem to take money from the older Krupp guy if you ask me.


Socialism in the nazi dictatorship was a pretty mixed bag:
On one hand socialist actions like KdF were taken, but only to make people comtempt with war plans. You cant wage war without a happy and fit population. You need them to die for you. On the other hand worker unions were destroyed and wages *frozen*. The real wage (wage corrected for inflation) did not rise at all after 1933, giving the average german not more moey to buy than before. Taxation policy was also not particularly socialistic. Taxes were raised in general for everybody, in order to pay off the massive governmental spendings, not in public welfare or consumer goods (there was nothing to buy for Joe Average and all money went to the bank, which in return could be used to lend it to the government in order to ...... buy more weapons).

What ruined the german economy and what made it necessary to exploit the jewish wealth (and ultimately foreign victim nations) was not socialism, but the rearmament plan that enriched the already rich. By 1938 the military budget reached 20% of GDP (in 1932 it was 1%). For comparison: in 2016 the US military budget was a whopping 3%! Imagine the US spending 7-8 times what it currently spends on military, and then make a guess which is the biggest burden for your overall budget. 


What can be learned from the nazi era mostly is that you are in a death spiral if you rely on military spendings in order to provide you (foreign) funds for your governmental budget.
What can be learned is that having a military and industrial complex, even losing a war and everybody having to start from scratch, most of the tycoons (like Krupp and Quandt) do not, a lesson that hurt germans most after 1945.

The "nationalsocialism=socialism=bad" tripe is a gross overimplification and equivocation, doing the real nazi ideology and its iffy details no justice. If you want to know who profited most from this time, you have to look after 1945. (War) profiteers´ names usually arent "Joe Average".

[Rev. Rye]

The people voted in national socialism for the german people. which in practice lasted about 10 years and could not sustain itself. once it turned on the jews by stealing their money and goods and put them into gettos and death camps that was the end of true socialism, and began down the road to full on dictatorship. once the jews money ran out the turn on their neighbors because at the core of the government was a socialist construct that is not a self sustaining model of government. you will always need more revenue than can be gleaned from the rich. IE you will have to find other sources to pay for all of the government hand outs or simply change the structure into what the nazis became.

No, they actually voted in Hindenburg, admittedly because the NSDAP was growing in prominence and the conservatives and socialists figured out that Hindenburg was the lesser evil and united, but political machinations led to Hindenburg appointing Hitler as chancellor. And in the last multi-party elections in March 1933, they only got 43.91% of the vote, and that's even with massive levels of voter intimidation on the part of the SA, SS, and Stahlhelm. 

Also, claiming they "turned on the jews" is fundamentally misleading in that it implies the Nazis were ever on friendly terms with the Jews. While the progression of the Holocaust was a lot slower than a lot of people think, with the Ghettoes only coming about in 1939 and the death camps only started around 1942, it was clear pretty early on the Nazis weren't going to be friendly to the Jews, and it started in April 1933, ironically enough, with a boycott of Jewish-owned businesses. Quickly, Jewish businesses were targeted for closure, Jews were forbidden from everything from the civil service (including medicine and law) to running fucking farms. and many were even stripped from attending college (along with courses being forbidden from discussing Weimar-era ideals of democracy and equality.) And it all went downhill from there. Literally the only bright spot until 8 May 1945 was around the time of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, and that was entirely because they didn't want any adverse publicity for this celebration of the superiority of the Aryan race, at least none more than Jesse Owens would end up giving them by winning four gold medals and proving that, yes, Black men could easily best the Aryan Superman. 

Seriously, this is pretty easy stuff to look up.

Moral of the story: 

[Deesse23]

once the jews money ran out the turn on their neighbors because at the core of the government was a socialist construct that is not a self sustaining model of government. you will always need more revenue than can be gleaned from the rich.

You are trying to attack an ideology whose core value was anti semitism, but are carrying out your attack using lies spread by those very anti semites...and you seemingly didnt even notice

The jews werent all rich. Cant imagine i have to point that out.

Listen to what Rev. Rye said.

[Rev. Rye]

And as much of a beast as I am in that particular part of history, I should emphasize that all the information I’ve brought out is pretty easy to find. Literally any bugger with an Internet connection can actually find this shit with just a little effort. I’m not going into the catacombs of the Arolsen Archives to look up obscure shit and share it with this thread. You can find all this information that blows your “Hitler was a socialist” narrative apart with just Google. This is fucking basic. Just like Drich’s understanding of... well... anything, really.

[Deesse23]

And as much of a beast as I am in that particular part of history, I should emphasize that all the information I’ve brought out is pretty easy to find. Literally any bugger with an Internet connection can actually find this shit with just a little effort. I’m not going into the catacombs of the Arolsen Archives to look up obscure shit and share it with this thread. You can find all this information that blows your “Hitler was a socialist” narrative apart with just Google. This is fucking basic. Just like Drich’s understanding of... well... anything, really.

....like pants for example?

He was making derogatory comments about arab mens´ garbs, ignoring the fact that greeks and romans, wearing togas that looked a lot like those arab mens´garbs, were considering pants to be garbs of barbaric steppe people or primitive german tribes?

[Drich]

The mueller report, as you have been shown with an actual citation in this thread, does not show what you said it does.  Further, it explicitly states that your characterization is wholly false.

My confusion is as to what fantasy world you're living in, but given that your "citations" are fox infotainment..that;s not quite right, huh?  More to how I could possibly discuss the merits of our respective opinions if you will not agree to contain yourself to the reality that facts obtain.

I already told you I wasn't interested in Qanon shit. I don't care whether it's you or lindsey graham or devin nunes mainlining that shit, lol.  You said the mueller report showed something, you said you had citations.  Neither of these two things were true.

The report has been edited by the federal government. meaning large portions have been completely omited or blacked out in compliance with federal law concerning the animinity of people or subjects under investigation or people or tactics used to gain information that is not to be share with the gener public as a matter of nation security (names of agents and spies working on the investigation ect) along with people and subject matters under current investigation... do you understand this part?

I provided you a video link of senator gramm telling us the Dossier and everyone involved in providing and pushing said dossier are under current investigation. which means all of that infor has been redacted. or black out/omitted from the public version of the muller report.
do you understand this? If you don'tit means your new times version is incomplete and you nor I am privy to the complete version. only members of congress and the senate with DOJ have access to most of the redacted portions, as even some of the report is not even open to them. Under normal circumstances the primary source the citable material would be the report. however under this circumstance the report is known to be incomplete and classified under the guise of the federal government. it is a state secret. Therefore the next legally quotable citable source would be from someone of authority who has read it.

That is what I did and that is what becomes your citation because no other legal information is available.

which is why i provided a video of a senator that has seen the redacted portions. and from what he is allowed to share he said he knew trump was innocent as the findings show the dossier to be false. Then I provided a cnn video that indicated the investigation showed the report to be manufactured by Christopher steele with the help of false info gained from the russians, yet use by the DNC as the primary evidence to start this investigation.

Then I provided a video link with a former DOJ that said the investigation should have stopped when the dossier which was the foundation of the whole investigation into TRUMP was found to be false. And that is what is being investigated now. who knew what andwhen.

So again I do not understand you confusion unless you are intentionally trolling me and the subject because you simply want the last word on something that is in the works and is playing out right now exactly as I described.

either way even if you don't understand still.. know I am on the side of history and there is an on going investigation on the dossier and everyone involved in it's production and illegal use to turn the DOJ onto an american citizen and president with manufactured evidence.

---

Glob..

Communism sport stalinist where the model of Com-mun-ism..  read what I said again dummy. There is a difference between socialism and communism. the nazi where socialists and the stalinist where vangaurd to the communists!!!
 
[/url]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
when communism was first introduced:
https://www.history.com/topics/russia/co...m-timeline

one shot!

---

So... the Stalinists' were only 'Communists'? They weren't 'Socalists'?

And the Nazi's started off 'socialist' and  then they became... Fascists?

So... what was/is the major differance between a 'Communist' and a 'Socialist' then?

How might one be a 'Democratic socialist' ?

Cheers.

Not at work.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Commun..._Socialism

Communism
SocialismPhilosophy
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.
Key Elements
Centralized government, planned economy, dictatorship of the "proletariat", common ownership of the tools of production, no private property. equality between genders and all people, international focus. Usually anti-democratic with a 1-party system.
Calculation in kind, Collective ownership, Cooperative common ownership, Economic democracy Economic planning, Equal opportunity, Free association, Industrial democracy, Input–output model, Internationalism, Labour voucher, Material balancing.
Political System
A communist society is stateless, classless and governed directly by the people. This, however, has never been achieved. In practice, they have been totalitarian in nature, with a central party governing society.
Can coexist with different political systems. Most socialists advocate participatory democracy, some (Social Democrats) advocate parliamentary democracy, and Marxist-Leninists advocate "Democratic centralism."
Ideas
All people are the same and therefore classes make no sense. The government should own all means of production and land and also everything else. People should work for the government and the collective output should be redistributed equally.
All individuals should have access to basic articles of consumption and public goods to allow for self-actualization. Large-scale industries are collective efforts and thus the returns from these industries must benefit society as a whole.
Private Property
Abolished. The concept of property is negated and replaced with the concept of commons and ownership with "usership".
Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State but with worker control.
Key Proponents
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Peter Kropotkin, Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, Emma Goldman, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Josip Broz Tito, Enver Hoxha, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro.
Charles Hall, François-Noël Babeuf, Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Louis Auguste Blanqui, William Thompson, Thomas Hodgskin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, Moses Hess, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bukinin.
Social Structure
All class distinctions are eliminated. A society in which everyone is both the owners of the means of production and their own employees.
Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than class distinctions. Some mobility.
Religion
Abolished - all religious and metaphysics is rejected. Engels and Lenin agreed that religion was a drug or “spiritual booze” and must be combated. To them, atheism put into practice meant a “forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Freedom of religion, but usually promotes secularism.
Economic Coordination
Economic planning coordinates all decisions regarding investment, production and resource allocation. Planning is done in terms of physical units instead of money.
Planned-socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Free Choice
Either the collective "vote" or the state's rulers make economic and political decisions for everyone else. In practice, rallies, force, propaganda etc. are used by the rulers to control the populace.
Religion, jobs, & marriage are up to the individual. Compulsory education. Free, equal access to healthcare & education provided through a socialized system funded by taxation. Production decisions driven more by State decision than consumer demand.
Definition
International theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the community or state. Rejection of free markets and extreme distrust of Capitalism in any form.
A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of most property in common, with actual ownership ascribed to the workers.
Ownership Structure
The means of production are commonly-owned, meaning no entity or individual owns productive property. Importance is ascribed to "usership" over "ownership".
The means of production are socially-owned with the surplus value produced accruing to either all of society (in Public-ownership models) or to all the employee-members of the enterprise (in Cooperative-ownership models).
Discrimination
In theory, all members of the state are considered equal to one another.
The people are considered equal; laws are made when necessary to protect people from discrimination. Immigration is often tightly controlled.
Way of Change
Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.
Workers in a socialist state are the nominal agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by the State on behalf of workers can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.
Political Movements
Marxist Communism, Leninism and Marxism–Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Dengism, Prachanda Path, Hoxhaism, Titoism, Eurocommunism, Luxemburgism, Council communism, Left-Communism.
Democratic socialism, communism, libertarian socialism, social anarchism, and syndicalism.
Economic System
The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Communism is predicated upon a condition of material abundance.
The means of production are owned by public enterprises or cooperatives, and individuals are compensated based on the principle of individual contribution. Production may variously be coordinated through either economic planning or markets.
Variations
Left Anarchism, Council Communism, European Communism, Juche Communism, Marxism, National Communism, Pre-Marxist Communism, Primitive Communism, Religious Communism, International Communism.
Market socialism, communism, state socialism, social anarchism.
Examples
Ideally, there is no leader; the people govern directly. This has never been actually practiced, and has just used a one-party system. Examples 0f Communist states are the erstwhile Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): although the actual categorization of the USSR's economic system is in dispute, it is often considered to be a form of centrally-planned socialism.
Means of control
Theoretically there is no state control.
Usage of a government.
Earliest Remnants
Theorized by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the mid-19th century as an alternative to capitalism and feudalism, communism was not tried out until after the revolution in Russia in the early 1910s.
In 1516, Thomas More write in "Utopia" about a society based around common ownership of property. In 1776, Adam Smith advocated the labor theory of value, ignoring the previous Cantillonian view that prices are derived from supply and demand.
Modern Examples
Recent far-left dictatorships include the USSR (1922-1991) and its sphere throughout eastern Europe. Only five nations presently have Communist governments: China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos and Russia.
Modern examples of socialist countries include China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam. Countries like India, North Korea and Sri Lanka also refer to themselves as socialist in their constitution.
History
Major Communist parties include the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1912-91), the Communist Party of China (1921-ON), the Workers' Party of Korea (1949-ON), and the Communist Party of Cuba (1965-ON).
Historic socialist examples include the Paris Commune, the Strandha Commune, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria; none continue to have Communist governments.
View of war
Communists believe that war is good for the economy by spurring production, but should be avoided.
Opinions range from prowar (Charles Edward Russell, Allan L. Benson) to antiwar (Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas). Socialists tend to agree with Keynesians that war is good for the economy by spurring production.
View of the world
Communism is an international movement; Communists in one country see themselves in solidarity with Communists in other countries. Communists distrust Nationalistic nations and leaders. Communists strongly distrust "big business."
Socialism is a movement of both the worker and middle-class, all for a common democratic goal.
Literature
The Communist Manifesto, “Das Kapital”, The State and Revolution, The Jungle, Reform or Revolution, Capital (Vol I: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production), Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, the Grapes of Wrath.
The Communist Manifesto, “Das Kapital”, The State and Revolution, The Jungle, Reform or Revolution, Capital (Vol I: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production), Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, the Grapes of Wrath.
Disadvantages
Historically, communism has always fallen into single part control over society. This can be due to its basic structure of consolidating all the power and resources, but then they are never relinquished to the people.
Socialism has hardly ever been successfully demonstrated, and never on a large scale. Human nature tends away from egalitarian sharing and toward private ownership. This foible will never change.

next time google it yourself before you look like a dumb ass with a single page dump that show over 100 distinction between the two.

one shot!

[The Grand Nudger]

The mueller report, as you have been shown with an actual citation in this thread, does not show what you said it does.  Further, it explicitly states that your characterization is wholly false.

My confusion is as to what fantasy world you're living in, but given that your "citations" are fox infotainment..that;s not quite right, huh?  More to how I could possibly discuss the merits of our respective opinions if you will not agree to contain yourself to the reality that facts obtain.

I already told you I wasn't interested in Qanon shit. I don't care whether it's you or lindsey graham or devin nunes mainlining that shit, lol.  You said the mueller report showed something, you said you had citations.  Neither of these two things were true.

The report has been edited by the federal government. meaning large portions have been completely omited or blacked out in compliance with federal law concerning the animinity of people or subjects under investigation or people or tactics used to gain information that is not to be share with the gener public as a matter of nation security (names of agents and spies working on the investigation ect) along with people and subject matters under current investigation... do you understand this part?

I provided you a video link of senator gramm telling us the Dossier and everyone involved in providing and pushing said dossier are under current investigation. which means all of that infor has been redacted. or black out/omitted from the public version of the muller report.
do you understand this? If you don'tit means your new times version is incomplete and you nor I am privy to the complete version. only members of congress and the senate with DOJ have access to most of the redacted portions, as even some of the report is not even open to them. Under normal circumstances the primary source the citable material would be the report. however under this circumstance the report is known to be incomplete and classified under the guise of the federal government. it is a state secret. Therefore the next legally quotable citable source would be from someone of authority who has read it.

That is what I did and that is what becomes your citation because no other legal information is available.

which is why i provided a video of a senator that has seen the redacted portions. and from what he is allowed to share he said he knew trump was innocent as the findings show the dossier to be false. Then I provided a cnn video that indicated the investigation showed the report to be manufactured by Christopher steele with the help of false info gained from the russians, yet use by the DNC as the primary evidence to start this investigation.

Then I provided a video link with a former DOJ that said the investigation should have stopped when the dossier which was the foundation of the whole investigation into TRUMP was found to be false. And that is what is being investigated now. who knew what andwhen.

So again I do not understand you confusion unless you are intentionally trolling me and the subject because you simply want the last word on something that is in the works and is playing out right now exactly as I described.

either way even if you don't understand still.. know I am on the side of history and there is an on going investigation on the dossier and everyone involved in it's production and illegal use to turn the DOJ onto an american citizen and president with manufactured evidence.

You're not providing a citation.  

You're giving me excuses for why you don't have what you claimed to have, why it wasn't where you claimed it would be, why the mueller report didn't show what you said it did, and why you feel no need to contain yourself to the reality that facts obtain.

[Drich]

are intentionally being obstinate or do you not know there is a major divide between communism and socialism? Ask stallin and hitler if they are compatible.. if so why did million fight eacth other to install their own personal ism in each others home land?

And here's what I have to say about the whole "Hitler was a socialist" meme:





And as someone who's currently between volumes in his re-reading of Ian Kershaw's mammoth biography of Hitler, I can say this is more or less accurate.

An actual quote from an early speech from Hitler:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist.

A few years later, he said this when asked about Socialism: "Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."

In the pre-1933 days, there was a sizable contingent of the National Socialist Worker's Party called the Strasserites that actually took the "Socialist" part of their name seriously. Around 1930, he started to purge them from the party. When he came to power, especially on the Night of the Long Knives, he purged them from life.

And here's what Richard J. Evans, one of the top historians of the era has to say about it:

Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats. (Page 172-3 of my edition of The Coming of the Third Reich.)

TL;DR: Unless your definition of "socialism" is "Anything Trump or Mitch McConnell doesn't like," Hitler was not a socialist. And I honestly wouldn't put it past Trump to even fail that definition.

And while we're on Democratic candidates and the crowds their rallies draw... well, here's a recent photo of a Bernie rally in Brooklyn a few months ago:


Huge crowds came out to see Bernie Sanders, and this was around the time of a major winter storm in New York. Still think Trump's far more popular than any Democratic candidate (and, bear in mind, as of my lunchtime, there were 22 others, which might also explain the poor showing at the Biden debate)?

what was the nation socialist party's key positions when they took control of the government? what did they sell the people on?

Again you seem to miss the historical mark because as I pointed out they did indeed start out as pure heart socialists, but it was not sustainable so they began to supplement their 'taxes' with what they stole from the jews and other countries.

They wanted to be socialist, but it quickly morphed into a dictatorship because socialism never works as advertised. too many people to bring up to a middle class life style.. the only way to support this is to take everything from others.

[The Grand Nudger]

The suggestion that some would be dictator could make populist promises that they fail to keep because they cannot be kept, and then transition to looting and imprisoning "undesirables" is just ludicrous, ludicrous sir!

[Drich]

are intentionally being obstinate or do you not know there is a major divide between communism and socialism? Ask stallin and hitler if they are compatible.. if so why did million fight eacth other to install their own personal ism in each others home land?

And here's what I have to say about the whole "Hitler was a socialist" meme:





And as someone who's currently between volumes in his re-reading of Ian Kershaw's mammoth biography of Hitler, I can say this is more or less accurate.

An actual quote from an early speech from Hitler:

Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of the nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem, “Deutschland ueber Alles,” to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land — that man is a Socialist.

A few years later, he said this when asked about Socialism: "Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."

In the pre-1933 days, there was a sizable contingent of the National Socialist Worker's Party called the Strasserites that actually took the "Socialist" part of their name seriously. Around 1930, he started to purge them from the party. When he came to power, especially on the Night of the Long Knives, he purged them from life.

And here's what Richard J. Evans, one of the top historians of the era has to say about it:

Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party…. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be “the socialism of fools.” But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the “November traitors” who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats. (Page 172-3 of my edition of The Coming of the Third Reich.)

TL;DR: Unless your definition of "socialism" is "Anything Trump or Mitch McConnell doesn't like," Hitler was not a socialist. And I honestly wouldn't put it past Trump to even fail that definition.

And while we're on Democratic candidates and the crowds their rallies draw... well, here's a recent photo of a Bernie rally in Brooklyn a few months ago:


Huge crowds came out to see Bernie Sanders, and this was around the time of a major winter storm in New York. Still think Trump's far more popular than any Democratic candidate (and, bear in mind, as of my lunchtime, there were 22 others, which might also explain the poor showing at the Biden debate)?

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!